Without giving you a monologue, I'll give you some food for thought in a very few statements.
1. The internet you know today allowed people to connect and share information globally.
2. Over the years, we've found value in digital things and may, thus, call them assets: e.g., data, media, and information/knowledge.
3. We have no way to deal with digital assets, which has implications and inefficiencies. DRM was a symptom & soft way to deal with this problem.
4. While the internet connects globally, it is not made to reflect ownership on a global level. Real ownership either doesn't exist or is not transparent. And while privacy is important, ownership should at least be cryptographically provable.
5. Blockchains do not aim to replace the internet or your database; they are a layer on top of the internet, giving us a new foundation to rethink and rebuild how we deal with digital value creation.
In some way, it will bring humanity closer on a global level.
On top of that, there are many philosophic, societal, and idealistic ideas. A lot of them require or trigger a systemic change—many of them we might never see happening, at least not in our lifetime.
> we've found value in digital things and may, thus, call them assets: e.g., data, media, and information/knowledge
> We have no way to deal with digital assets
Are you writing an ad for a new crypto platform that is definitely not a scam?
There are literally people on the Internet who are able to deal with data, media, information and knowledge without ever touching crypto. Amazing, right?
Because the question needs to be revised. It is not about what you can do with an append only database vs. blockchain. That's not reflecting its purpose.
* Insurances (e.g. your travel insurance) are contracts. They should be digital, standardized, on a public ledger, so that I can travel anywhere and prove that I have one instead of having to bring, a fakeable piece of paper.
* If I resell my phone, transfering the remaining guarantee and/or insurance should be nothing else then a transaction. On the blockchain that's 10x more efficient than the status quo.
* If an artist sells his art the first time for $10, and the person resells it for 10000$, then the artist should be compensated too. Royalty mechanisms can solve for that and avoid secondary markets or at least create a more beneficial secondary.
There are an endless amount of examples which will make a lot of things more efficient, transparent and enforce standardization on a global level. Long way to go, but absolutely worth it.
As usual, all of these "use cases" suffer from the problem at the boundaries (see also Oracle problem), namely that you can automate everything on the blockchain you're using, but once you're back in the real world you no longer have any guarantee. Your new layer of abstraction just leaves you with a more brittle system.
* insurances: you still need somebody outside the smart contract that needs to connect it to what happens. You've just moved the trust from one place to another, and you're not better off.
* transferring money is faster in many countries than it is with (e.g.) BTC when you include the wait for the confirmation blocks. It's also bound to become faster and cheaper, while many blockchains (especially BTC) seem stuck with their processing time. Even countries with slow bank transfers now tend to have a fast solution, like Zelle in the US. Add problems like volatility of the cryptocurrency with the respect to the currency that actually matters, high (and volatile) fees, and transfers via cryptocurrencies is only attractive in a few countries and will only remain so as long as these countries do not improve.
* with art you again have the same boundary problem: the blockchain you use doesn't know what's happening, and only the law will resolve your conflicts.
> efficient, transparent and enforce standardization
So far the blockchain systems have been less efficient than non-blockchain ones they purported to replace, see the usual comparison with the Visa network for example.
Transparency and standardization are orthogonal to the use of a blockchain: using one doesn't mean you can't be opaque or follow any standard.
But this is only because businesses have yet to be built around this technology. These things will change. We are super early. We should not build these use cases everyone is asking for right now. The tech is still early and has to figure out many things. There is a lot of innovation happening on the base- and interoperability level, and it needs a lot more abstraction (e.g., network and account abstraction) to make things more usable.
Standardization also plays a huge role, and yes, in many ways, it's a technological chicken-and-egg problem whereby systems have to work with each other and the chain in a way that makes intermediaries as obsolete as possible.
The transfer speed of money or the general transaction speed - well, that's something that is being solved as we speak. These systems (e.g. Ethereum) have to mature, and many ways are being explored, using known principles like separation of concerns, e.g., separating settlement, execution, and data layers - but in a decentralized manner.
The public and many entrepreneurs need to understand how early this tech is and rush use cases that don't add value as of now. You must go deep and understand that this has to grow from the bottom up.
> this is only because businesses have yet to be built around this technology
No, these are fundamental problems that time can't solve. Businesses aren't built around this technology because it's not advantageous to use it in a legally compliant environment.
Companies in this field keep adding new layers of abstraction pretending they're solving a problem; they're just moving it to somewhere else, but the fundamentals remain the same. Basically running in circle.
It is hard to comprehend what it'd mean to have the world connected via distributed ledgers that provide transparency and would be able to automate a lot of what we do to a much higher degree.
We're not running in circles.
> Businesses aren't built around this technology because it's not advantageous to use it in a legally compliant environment.
This is just one of the reasons. The technology is also not scalable and abstracted enough yet. No one is pretending anything here.
> It is hard to comprehend what it'd mean to have the world connected via distributed ledgers that provide transparency and would be able to automate a lot of what we do to a much higher degree.
idk, take your phone thing as an example. Blockchain doesn't solve anything, because nothing stops me from reselling the phone without transferring the insurance, or transferring the insurance and keeping the phone. The whole problem is that it's not linked to the phone itself.
instead of going on about benefits, what is an industry that currently suffers from an actual problem that a blockchain could solve? because right now I'm not aware of any problems in society where blockchain is the solution
All blockchain proves is that you have access to someone's insurance key. While it would be a bit more difficult or costly than faking a card, it's not impossible. And most places I've been to don't even care about the card or the insurance number, they just ask for my regular ID and insurance provider to verify with.
> resell my phone
Two things:
1) The status quo could be that the new owner has the serial number of the phone. The fact that it isn't this simple (if it really isn't this simple) is because the seller doesn't want to make it that simple.
2) Insurance is particular to a person and their activities. For things such as aftermarket phone insurance the price you pay for the insurance will be based in part on your individual risks. This is obviously not transferable.
I just gave some examples. Tech is early, and the businesses around this new environment still have to be built. It's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem.
But what sets append-only databases apart from blockchains for any of these examples? Why can't I symmetrically say, "It's very early for append-only DBs, and new businesses around them still have to be built"?
Easy. Unlike pen and paper, the operator of an append-only database can publicly distribute it in real-time so that interested parties can read it and audit it for consistency. I don't see what the distributed consensus required by a blockchain adds on top of that, unless you're saying that all these applications require a zero-trust source of truth.
> unless you're saying that all these applications require a zero-trust source of truth.
Not all of them, of course. It's not a wonder child that aims to solve all of humanity's problems. It'll bring humanity closer, though and make it more efficient in many ways. People always try to look so narrow at it.
There are plenty of use cases and attributes (permissionlessness, immutability, zero-trust sources, etc.), and of course, not always all of these count all the time or are even desired. But it allows us to have and apply those as needed in an interoperable way.
But why do you think that its permissionless and zero-trust properties allow blockchain technology in particular to "bring humanity closer and make it more efficient in many ways", better than other technologies can? In other words, why are these properties so important that a blockchain is to an append-only DB as an append-only DB is to pen and paper, by your own analogy?
It may be early, but it's also actively competing with other systems. Those other systems aren't going to just stay stagnant until blockchain is ready.
> If an artist sells his art the first time for $10, and the person resells it for 10000$, then the artist should be compensated too.
This is far from axiomatic[1].
Also, presumably you can move up a level of abstraction and sell the identity that bought the artwork for $10000. The blockchain doesn't need to know that the keys have changed hands.
I don't know about KZ policy[0], but in at least a couple of countries it's much easier to get asylum if one has reasons to fear for one's safety in one's home country.
[0] although it does seem similar to most countries', judging by the (commonly observed) fact that several of their international athletes started out competing under a different flag.
You got a lot of good advice here. So I'll keep it short. I'm 32 now. I spent my last 12 years building companies. They all failed; I didn't earn a penny, and I didn't even get venture capital, and it made me feel like a failure. And I'm talking serious attempts. 6 years, 2 years, 1 year and in between a lot of research & freelancing to evaluate other ideas.
I'm leading a 40 people team, and it's going well. How did I get there? By chance. Another hackathon resulted in the right industry at the right time.
But also 12 years of exercise in pitching, structuring information, data, setting up on organization, addressing all kinds of different technologies and all of that.
You are learning so much and you feel treated unfairly by not being able to show it off. Keep on going. Maybe go back to work for 10-12 months for some stability and to take a break, but then try again.
Same here. My first "startup" was dropshipping textbooks to fellow college students when I was a freshman 14 years ago. Learned a ton at a series B "startup" straight out of college in customer support and within 7 months, was fired. Spent 5 years as a founder at remarkhq where we couldn't figure out the business model to get paid while frame.io raised a massive amount of money to copy us and eventually led them to $1B acquisition with Adobe. Then went and joined a friend's stock market for real estate startup dynasty.com that pivoted and was subsequently acquired for $75M. Realized at said real estate startup that there was a massive industry wide problem that property managers suck so just started solo consulting to finally make real money for myself and future family I was told by my wife. I was 28 when I started my current startup (apmhelp.com) and never thought it would actually be something beyond a consulting business. Here I am 5 years later $5M ARR having just closed a $50M facility. It's still not all roses however as this year has been a rollercoaster. Literally today we layoff another 10% so that we can live to see another year. Startups are fucking hard and it takes everything to go at it again and again but I don't work a single day of my life. I wouldn't swap it for anything (long term). Best of luck! Don't give up either!!
We're also facing hard issues every now and then and then you face things like strong competition that can make you nervous at times (depending of the scale of your industry), but having suffered more personally in the past in this context, just helps to face these things today much easier.
Freelancing and I had a co-founder (also technical) all along with whom I worked very closely in terms of survival. E.g. sometimes he was freelancing for the both of us while I was networking, researching, and evaluating opportunities.
Having a co-founder that is complementary to your personality and skill-set is highly valuable. We've been working together for 10 years now.
Thanks for sharing your story. Your experience is key—there may be a strong luck component to success, but with enough attempts, it seems that your luck increases. Often, hidden behind "overnight successes" is a trail of failures.
Yes, exactly. You'll be surrounded by succeeding and failing people, and you'll see patterns in decision making, execution and (in)valiations. It helps tremendously. Also, I'm feeling very confident in my position and execution because I've suffered enough over the past years. So current challenges feel much easier.
No, my own company, started last year in April during a Hackathon and then got a first seed round started in July, closed in October. Currently even able to do a massive Series A, despite market conditions. From the 40 people, >50% are developers.
Multi-Chain Trading API across 60+ Blockchains (swapping and bridging / any-to-any)