I started getting asked about blockchain 5+ years ago. My observation then is the same as it is now: it is fundamentally interesting technology looking for a problem. For most of the proposed solutions, its overkill…by 10x. When simple API integrations and even old fashioned contracts can enforce something just fine, why add all this complexity?

For the cases where blockchain might be justified, it has a major hurdle: all participants must agree, adopt, deploy and maintain a significantly complex piece of software that few understand. How is that attractive? And this is not even touching on those with entrenched interests (read: revenue) dependent on the existing, inefficient system that distributed trust attempts to break down.

I don’t think blockchain is a fancy tech fad but is in the “trough of disillusionment” phase of the hype curve. It will be useful…but in 10 years.

I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who thought: but what is it then, for God’s sake, this whole blockchain thing? And what’s so terribly revolutionary about it? What problem does it solve? That’s why I wrote this article. I can tell you upfront, it’s a bizarre journey to nowhere. I’ve never seen so much incomprehensible jargon to describe so little. I’ve never seen so much bloated bombast fall so flat on closer inspection. And I’ve never seen so many people searching so hard for a problem to go with their solution. 

https://thecorrespondent.com/655/blockchain-the-amazing-solution-for-almost-nothing/86649455475-f933fe63