In a previous article, I mentioned that I often listen to a technology blogger in a paid space talking about technological development and technology investment. He has very good insights into many industries in the technology field. In particular, this blogger mentioned the potential of Nvidia stock very early on.
Therefore, I admire a lot of what he said.
But this morning he made these (similar) comments when he mentioned crypto:
- Blockchain technology is on the edge of the technology field and cannot provide direct value to enterprises;
- Currently, one of the more useful cases of blockchain technology is the traceability of Moutai liquor, but the need for traceability is only secondary to the production of Moutai;
- I mentioned Ethereum before, because Ethereum can issue coins, so issuing coins is still somewhat useful. But now Bitcoin can also issue coins, so Ethereum is not very useful.
For an ordinary person, it is not easy to understand to this extent, especially to be able to state the second and third points.
But as people like us who have been immersed in the crypto ecosystem for a long time, we cannot stop at these views.
Regarding the traceability of Moutai, or more broadly speaking, the use of blockchain technology for traceability, in my opinion, it is actually an absolute false demand.
I can’t say that this demand does not exist at all, but it is definitely not an application that blockchain technology can be proud of or outstanding.
The reason is simple: in the process of tracing the source, the link of putting information on the chain is controlled by people. And this step is the most unreliable. If someone plays tricks at this step and puts false information on the chain, then what we see on the blockchain is false information that cannot be tampered with.
This type of application is like a balloon with nothing but a hollow surface. A needle can easily puncture its flashy appearance.
To say that the role of Ethereum is just to issue coins is to underestimate the role of smart contracts. Issuing coins is its first large-scale application, but its core essence is by no means to issue coins, but to create an execution environment that is not interfered with by the outside world, so that "laws" (i.e. smart contracts) can be enforced uprightly in the virtual world - this is something new that has never existed in human society for thousands of years.
As for Bitcoin issuance, I guess it refers to the inscription technology. This is of course a very great invention of the Bitcoin ecosystem in this cycle.
But the core of this technology still needs a more important environment to support it, at least for now - off-chain consensus, that is, the consensus formed by distributed indexers. And this consensus, from my limited understanding, is still risky in terms of security, at least for now - only indexers run by four large companies maintain this consensus.
Compared with the nearly tens of thousands of nodes in the Bitcoin ecosystem, there is still a long way to go with four indexer nodes.
Finally, it is undoubtedly correct to say that blockchain technology today cannot provide value to enterprises.
I remember that I once shared my views in an article a long time ago: It is probably a luxury to expect blockchain technology to provide value to enterprises and institutions in human society or to have a real impact on human life, at least in the next five years.
Of course, it will and will in the future, but it is too early now.
I once made an analogy: the steam engine was invented, but in order for the steam engine to truly trigger the industrial revolution of mankind, the invention of the crankshaft and connecting rod was also needed. And the crypto ecosystem may not have a crankshaft and connecting rod suitable for human society in the next five years.
There may not be a crankshaft connecting rod suitable for human society in the next five years. Doesn’t that mean the crypto ecosystem will have no future in the next five years?
If you look at it this way, you are looking at the problem from a human perspective, just as this blogger believes that "it cannot provide direct value to the enterprise " from a human standpoint.
If we look at the problem with divergent thinking, it will be different:
Because I am increasingly convinced that this technology is not for humans, but for AI. I seem to vaguely see that another thing has been or is being invented at an accelerated pace - a crankshaft connecting rod suitable for AI.
For example, some recent opinions have pointed out the need to develop encrypted platforms or media for interactions between AI agents.
What I'm a little unsure about is: is the platform or medium that we've developed really suitable for AI agents?
It's like animals need to eat food, but is the food that humans feed animals according to their own imagination necessarily suitable for animals to eat?
However, no matter what, I think this direction is correct.
By analyzing this case, we can also see from another perspective that blockchain technology is indeed very different from our existing information technology and has different thinking. To understand it in depth, we still have a long way to go.
