Blockchains are a tech for commons records among consenting parties. As a "database", it's really quite niche. But as a fundamental tech it's an advancement, be

Blockchains are a tech for commons records among consenting parties. As a "database", it's really quite niche. But as a fundamental tech it's an advancement, because it lets you set up some basic rules and then know that the log henceforth doesn't need a designated custodian, and can accommodate many contributors. The surface area for indiscretion is reduced, and the chain doesn't need highly visible maintenance to stick around. This quality also makes it actually pretty unsuitable for capitalism: capitalism premises enclosure of the commons through the enforcement of the state. It desires strong identity and legibility everywhere. So it becomes "pointless" by definition - a bad database - if the state or some other body is assumed in control. Thus the commonplace scenario of blockchains being a legitimizing veneer for scams has taken hold: actually using their best qualities is anti-capitalistic, but using them to obscure a scheme can be done if you tinker around with the financing enough so that you stay a step ahead of regulation. But there is genuine activity, gradually increasing over time, through the contrasting role of blockchain stewardship. This starts with the role of miners in the technical substrate; and it proceeds towards more general ideas around governance and solving decentralized coordination problems. Markets often appear in the midst as a way of ranking things by price as well as by name or category, but markets aren't necessarily special. The speculative market does has a role in building up these ideas, though, because each time the tide goes out, those projects that have done the best at addressing coordination issues become survivors. There's a holistic element to the tech really working well that is just barely being touched upon.