This right here is what is so frustrating about the general engagement with blockchains in the last half decade. On one hand, I am knowledgeable about the subje

This right here is what is so frustrating about the general engagement with blockchains in the last half decade. On one hand, I am knowledgeable about the subject domain and witnessed businesses offering some ludicrous compensation for working on blockchains for them, but to be informed is to know how misguided all these people are about why blockchains are useful, and talking to peers who did get involved in some of these projects (especially circa 2013 ones) companies spent a lot on a fad and just as quickly ended the experiment because blockchains are not magic money machines. They are only beneficial to establish a trustless data store. That is the only function they serve. If you don't need trustless consensus, you don't need or want a blockchain. If you are a state actor or some major corporation, you trust yourself already, and you don't need trustless data stores, and at corporate scale any interaction with other entities that might validly use trustless data (like money tracked between banks) has the entities involved capable of influencing force of law to maintain systemic trust. That is why Zimbabwe citizens value it, and why a Fortune 500 or European state power doesn't need one.