5 ms·

As someone who is a CEO of a medical blockchain startup which is trying to find actual meaningful use cases, I agree 100% with the conclusions of this post. (f

by drcode 7y ago

As someone who is a CEO of a medical blockchain startup which is trying to find actual meaningful use cases, I agree 100% with the conclusions of this post. (finding actual convincing use cases in the medical space for this tech is hard)

marcus_holmes 7y ago
so...why are you still the CEO of a medical blockchain startup? Surely you escorted yourself off the premises by now? ;) But seriously, isn't this putting the cart before the horse? The usual order is "find a problem, build a solution", not "find a technology, build a solution, work out who has a problem it can solve". How's that working out for you?
- pryelluw 7y ago
  There might be potential uses for distributed ledgers in an industry that is required by law to share your care history. This specific company not having arrived at a concrete product does not negate the potential upside. All it takes for them to do is develop a technology that can be of interest to an industry giant and become acquired. Im not saying this is the case here, but it is a real option.
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    ahh, I see... so more like speculative R&D, developing a technology to the point where it's saleable to a larger organisation. So there's no need for a customer problem to solve, it's just about building enough capability with the tech to become acqui-hirable, is that right?
    - pryelluw 7y ago
      To a point. I cant comment on regards to this being the goal of the company above. We should consider the following: A startup can have a product offering and also be the product itself.
      - marcus_holmes 7y ago
        not sure that works in many places outside Silicon Valley. I've been working in the startup scene in Perth, Western Australia, for years now, and the opportunities for getting bought areslim. A startup there needs to have a global customer base to stand a chance of making revenue, let alone equity growth.
  - acdha 7y ago
    Why is that not done at a tiny fraction of the cost using PKI? None of the parties are secret and there’s a clear line of ownership for every bit of information. What does a blockchain add other than scaling challenges and the opportunity to create an irrecoverable HIPAA violation?
  - noelsusman 7y ago
    We're only required to share the history of care you have with us, which is easily achieved with a standard database. We communicate with other providers using standard protocols that are implemented by every EHR system. I struggle to think of a use case for this in healthcare.
- duskwuff 7y ago
  > "find a technology, build a solution, work out who has a problem it can solve" Sadly, I feel like this could be used to describe most applications of "blockchain technology".
- kbenson 7y ago
  > The usual order is "find a problem, build a solution", not "find a technology, build a solution, work out who has a problem it can solve". Well, there is a whole industry of universities of finding a technology and then licensing it out or spinning a company off to do something with it. It may be that it's very hard to do if you don't have all the things a university does going for it, but it does work in some cases. Another way to look at it is to consider that if a technology excels at offering capabilities in a certain domain, and a certain industry is known to require capabilities in a certain domain, if there is a good fit for it, it will probably eventually be deployed there. But if you can be first, there's likely money to be made. In that respect, I imagine a "CEO of a medical blockchain startup which is trying to find actual meaningful use cases" is really just someone (or a small group of people) doing intensive research to try to locate the match if it exists and be the first to provide it. A gamble, but one okay odds given the potential payoff.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > there is a whole industry of universities of finding a technology and then licensing it out or spinning a company off to do something with it. Kinda sorta, but that's a difference in kind. Most university research tends to be "basic research", meaning that it tends to be focused on understanding how things work rather than developing anything that is immediately useful. In the course of doing that, sometimes something immediately useful is developed -- but that's not the most common case. This sort of research is not "finding a solution, then looking for a problem to solve". It's simply trying to figure out how our world works.
    - kbenson 7y ago
      If you look at all their research, sure, but then you might as well include all their education too, which muddies it more. They definitely seem to also go for directed advances in specific areas. For example, battery technology. Usually, what's developed isn't something to replace the current best choice for most applications, but sometimes it does have features that make it extremely useful for specific applications (such as a very quick charge or discharge time). Was the university research intended to increase the understanding of the topic overall? Likely. Were they also hoping to develop something they could make some revenue from? Surely.
- drcode 7y ago
  > How's that working out for you? It's a slow process, for exactly the reasons you describe- in fact, I've quoted that exact same line of reasoning many times myself. The reason to work in this area regardless is because there are definitely large opportunities long term.
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    That's interesting, and refreshing honesty :) thanks If you don't mind me being more nosy, are the long-term opportunities in this exact line of business? (i.e. do you think that one day medical records will be routinely stored on a blockchain?) or is it more than developing skills and capability with both blockchain and health tech will be valuable in the future?
    - drcode 7y ago
      Tracking employee identities in The medical space should be done in a much more rigorous fashion, there are significant benefits in doing this on a public blockchain. Medical records MAY someday end up on a blockchain, but the benefits of this are more hazy and may never outweigh the switching costs.
      - binarnosp 7y ago
        Maybe it could be used to track the certification process for pharmaceuticals or medical software?
fishB 7y ago
What blockchain technology are you going with? I find the private blockchain technologies (Hyperledger Fabric, Hyperledger Sawtooth) superior for these types of applications especially since Fabric implemented private data.
- drcode 7y ago
  Why not just store the data privately in a traditional database? A blockchain needs to be public to offer significant benefits compared to databases.
  - fishB 7y ago
    Because they offer consensus among multiple organizations. Also is good for supply chain tracking. But I understand why people avoid the blockchain space altogether. There was so many bad projects that were not suitable for the tech when all the hype was going on. Not to mention all the cryptocurrency scams. Fortunately a lot of the private blockchain tech has nothing to do with cryptocurrencies.
    - drcode 7y ago
      Yeah I used to think this too at one point, but it's much easier to just have multiple companies share a database- the idea that a consortium chain is somehow better than this hasn't born out empirically so far, in my opinion. Things are different with true public blockchains, they really do have some novel use cases.
      - magnamerc 7y ago
        Case in point is Nightfall by Ernst and Young.

by drcode 7y ago

marcus_holmes 7y ago

so...why are you still the CEO of a medical blockchain startup? Surely you escorted yourself off the premises by now? ;) But seriously, isn't this putting the cart before the horse? The usual order is "find a problem, build a solution", not "find a technology, build a solution, work out who has a problem it can solve". How's that working out for you?

pryelluw 7y ago
There might be potential uses for distributed ledgers in an industry that is required by law to share your care history. This specific company not having arrived at a concrete product does not negate the potential upside. All it takes for them to do is develop a technology that can be of interest to an industry giant and become acquired. Im not saying this is the case here, but it is a real option.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  ahh, I see... so more like speculative R&D, developing a technology to the point where it's saleable to a larger organisation. So there's no need for a customer problem to solve, it's just about building enough capability with the tech to become acqui-hirable, is that right?
  - pryelluw 7y ago
    To a point. I cant comment on regards to this being the goal of the company above. We should consider the following: A startup can have a product offering and also be the product itself.
    - marcus_holmes 7y ago
      not sure that works in many places outside Silicon Valley. I've been working in the startup scene in Perth, Western Australia, for years now, and the opportunities for getting bought areslim. A startup there needs to have a global customer base to stand a chance of making revenue, let alone equity growth.
- acdha 7y ago
  Why is that not done at a tiny fraction of the cost using PKI? None of the parties are secret and there’s a clear line of ownership for every bit of information. What does a blockchain add other than scaling challenges and the opportunity to create an irrecoverable HIPAA violation?
- noelsusman 7y ago
  We're only required to share the history of care you have with us, which is easily achieved with a standard database. We communicate with other providers using standard protocols that are implemented by every EHR system. I struggle to think of a use case for this in healthcare.
duskwuff 7y ago
> "find a technology, build a solution, work out who has a problem it can solve" Sadly, I feel like this could be used to describe most applications of "blockchain technology".
kbenson 7y ago
> The usual order is "find a problem, build a solution", not "find a technology, build a solution, work out who has a problem it can solve". Well, there is a whole industry of universities of finding a technology and then licensing it out or spinning a company off to do something with it. It may be that it's very hard to do if you don't have all the things a university does going for it, but it does work in some cases. Another way to look at it is to consider that if a technology excels at offering capabilities in a certain domain, and a certain industry is known to require capabilities in a certain domain, if there is a good fit for it, it will probably eventually be deployed there. But if you can be first, there's likely money to be made. In that respect, I imagine a "CEO of a medical blockchain startup which is trying to find actual meaningful use cases" is really just someone (or a small group of people) doing intensive research to try to locate the match if it exists and be the first to provide it. A gamble, but one okay odds given the potential payoff.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > there is a whole industry of universities of finding a technology and then licensing it out or spinning a company off to do something with it. Kinda sorta, but that's a difference in kind. Most university research tends to be "basic research", meaning that it tends to be focused on understanding how things work rather than developing anything that is immediately useful. In the course of doing that, sometimes something immediately useful is developed -- but that's not the most common case. This sort of research is not "finding a solution, then looking for a problem to solve". It's simply trying to figure out how our world works.
  - kbenson 7y ago
    If you look at all their research, sure, but then you might as well include all their education too, which muddies it more. They definitely seem to also go for directed advances in specific areas. For example, battery technology. Usually, what's developed isn't something to replace the current best choice for most applications, but sometimes it does have features that make it extremely useful for specific applications (such as a very quick charge or discharge time). Was the university research intended to increase the understanding of the topic overall? Likely. Were they also hoping to develop something they could make some revenue from? Surely.
drcode 7y ago
> How's that working out for you? It's a slow process, for exactly the reasons you describe- in fact, I've quoted that exact same line of reasoning many times myself. The reason to work in this area regardless is because there are definitely large opportunities long term.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  That's interesting, and refreshing honesty :) thanks If you don't mind me being more nosy, are the long-term opportunities in this exact line of business? (i.e. do you think that one day medical records will be routinely stored on a blockchain?) or is it more than developing skills and capability with both blockchain and health tech will be valuable in the future?
  - drcode 7y ago
    Tracking employee identities in The medical space should be done in a much more rigorous fashion, there are significant benefits in doing this on a public blockchain. Medical records MAY someday end up on a blockchain, but the benefits of this are more hazy and may never outweigh the switching costs.
    - binarnosp 7y ago
      Maybe it could be used to track the certification process for pharmaceuticals or medical software?

fishB 7y ago

What blockchain technology are you going with? I find the private blockchain technologies (Hyperledger Fabric, Hyperledger Sawtooth) superior for these types of applications especially since Fabric implemented private data.

drcode 7y ago
Why not just store the data privately in a traditional database? A blockchain needs to be public to offer significant benefits compared to databases.
- fishB 7y ago
  Because they offer consensus among multiple organizations. Also is good for supply chain tracking. But I understand why people avoid the blockchain space altogether. There was so many bad projects that were not suitable for the tech when all the hype was going on. Not to mention all the cryptocurrency scams. Fortunately a lot of the private blockchain tech has nothing to do with cryptocurrencies.
  - drcode 7y ago
    Yeah I used to think this too at one point, but it's much easier to just have multiple companies share a database- the idea that a consortium chain is somehow better than this hasn't born out empirically so far, in my opinion. Things are different with true public blockchains, they really do have some novel use cases.
    - magnamerc 7y ago
      Case in point is Nightfall by Ernst and Young.