When it comes to innovation, it's a mistake to assume big incumbents must lead the way. It's called disruptive innovation for a reason -- because incumbents who

When it comes to innovation, it's a mistake to assume big incumbents must lead the way. It's called disruptive innovation for a reason -- because incumbents who refuse to change often get disrupted. We've seen this time and time again. That doesn't mean incumbents are powerless. They can resist top-down changes. But they often have trouble resisting technological innovation that spreads bottom-up. The blockchain is a decentralized protocol that's spreading from the bottom up due to popularity with consumers, similar to the web. Did newspaper companies want to be on the web in the 1990s and early 2000s? No. But they were forced to by new web-based competitors that readers found more convenient. The same pathway is quite possible here. There are already lots of games and apps being funded that support NFTs. Assuming they're any good and consumers like them, what are incumbents to do? Continue making inferior products? They won't win like that in the long run. And FWIW, Meta already announced it'll be supporting NFTs, and Jack Dorsey from Twitter has been musing about doing the same. > There is no reason to believe that NFTs will solve what could be solved by open data protocols long ago. HN has a history of prioritizing technological specifications over real-world adoption and human psychology. The fact of the matter is that NFTs and the blockchain are seeing adoption, whereas the other protocols you're alluding to are not.