RE:RE:RE:we ready for the next leg up... rally mode :) Separation
But with the enterprise world the asset of course isn’t born on-chain – this creates a separation between the chain and the asset. In that space things can happen, whether by accident or on purpose, which means that when the chain is supposed to represent a single source of truth for the origination, reality of what the asset purports to be, and ownership of said asset, it simply can’t be relied upon.
Some examples:
Luxury goods provenance… whether it be a watch or a handbag, there will be ways to duplicate, replicate or steal the identifier on the real-world item allowing for fakes to enter the system and be sold.
Food supply chain transparency… at what point does the ‘organic milk’ you’re tracking go on chain? At the cow’s birth? When milked? When bottled? And the milk isn’t going to be tracked, it’ll be the bottle, or maybe just the sticker on the bottle – these things can fall off or be switched out, but the chain will never know and neither will the observer.
Asset tokenisation… buying tokenised gold, land, property etc is a nice idea, but there’s still no way as the “owner” of the tokenised asset to know that you really do own the asset in the real world, just because a ledger says so. Again, things can happen off ledger that you might never know about. What happens if the gold is stolen? The ledger says you still own it. Now what?
This separation between asset and chain, just creates far too much doubt to accept the ledger’s version of truth for many people. This is quite possibly why we are yet to see many real world blockchain projects emerge successfully from pilot.
This is not to say that DLT is completely redundant, but all expectations of its world-changing capabilities have been seriously overstated, and previously I feel that I may have been partly to blame on this exaggeration (albeit naively).
The post Blockchain won’t work for most enterprise use cases, here’s why… appeared first on Coin Rivet.