"What's Blockchain Actually Good for, Anyway? For Now, Not Much" Agree or Disagree?
This is the problem in my opinion. Everyone viewed blockchain as a panacea and got disillusioned when they realized it wasn't.
“In 2017, it was enough to have blockchain technology and everyone reaches out to you,” says Karayaneva. “But now working with traditional investors, we actually avoid the word blockchain in many of our materials.”
For a while, blockchain was seen as a panacea, says Andrew Stevens, a Gartner analyst who coauthored the “blockchain fatigue” study.
[...]"
Here's a link to the article https://www.wired.com/story/whats-blockchain-good-for-not-much
Disagree...
1st, Wired magazine is a prostitute to the legacy system's handlers and Wired's authors/journalists, like the rest of the legacy media, never stray from the line that must be towed. 2nd, blockchain has been confirmed for all to see as a way to store value TRANSPARENTLY as well as providing the opposite service of being able to transact discreetly without middle-men. It banks the unbanked, it transacts with immediacy that the legacy system could never duplicate (without depriving the banking institutions of their handling fees) and it's utterly reliable in comparison to the legacy system. Bankers can put holds on checks, but they can't halt a blockchain transaction.
Contracts on blockchain can and do act as reliable escrows, arbiters and coldly efficient payers which never miscount or hide from auditors.
The single biggest advantage of blockchain and something our legacy system (which is devoid of REAL money like gold and silver) lacks... is TRUST. The consensus system of these blockchains guarantees trust in a way that legacy banks never can.
Yes, I agree. I don't know about "prostitute" but their take on the blockchain has mostly been quite negative which runs counter to good journalism practices.
And with this piece, they took a few examples that didn't work and made a sweeping generalization which looks unprofessional, to say the least.