You can find a huge amount of debates regarding the use of blockchain. Some believe that the only possible use is money. Others believe that blockchain can solve many other problems. Should a blockchain have only a single native asset, or should it have, for example, like Cardano, functionalities like smart contracts, the ability to issue native assets, add metadata, etc.? Let's think about this. TLDR Blockchain can be useful wherever it is necessary to establish trust between participants. The line between blockchain money and independence from the state is still being explored. Therefore, we do not know what technologies we need for this. If decentralized technology can reduce dependence on intermediaries and be more efficient, it will be useful. Decentralization capabilities will meet the need for increased digitization. The Internet needs the ability to easily and transparently transfer copyright ideally without having to interact with a third party. NFTs can solve it. As with blockchain money, the blockchain is not there to resolve disputes but to record information that user X owned token Y at time Z. Trust is the cornerstone of communication States, institutions, money, business, and many other things only work because of trust. We demand trust from all counterparties with whom we come into contact. There are many mechanisms at work in society to ensure that trust is present and not gradually eroded. Yet breaches of trust do occur. Sometimes suddenly and unexpectedly, sometimes slowly and invisibly. Modern technology is changing the demands on forms of trust. Before the internet, people who trusted each other were those who came into direct contact with each other and communicated face to face. Politicians can't meet every citizen, but they try to be visible in the media. In this way, they can gain the trust of the citizens. Through the authorities, citizens meet representatives of the state. The form of communication used to be face-to-face. Today, communication with the authorities is becoming digital, as in many other cases. A few years ago, we had to make all purchases in stores. Arranging a bank account or making any changes required a visit to the bank. Communication with the authorities was done in person or through letters. Today we can use the Internet for most of these transactions. Many services would not exist on the Internet if it were not possible to establish trust between participants. Few people realize how important cryptography is in this process. Modern services have managed to isolate users from cryptography so even if you have used it to read this article, you don't know about it. All the banking transactions you do through your phone are encrypted and you have to prove that it's really you. A blockchain is a trust machine. From the very beginning, it was conceived as a tool for Peer-to-Peer communication. Its goal is to remove unreliable and ineffective intermediaries from the communication process. The question of whether we need blockchain for a given problem is easy to answer. Does the issue at hand relate to trust between participants? If so, blockchain can be useful. Of course, blockchain is not a one-size-fits-all solution to all kinds of problems. Current services will not necessarily be better just because we somehow incorporate blockchain into the process. The argument that blockchain is only good for the money Would it be possible to replace fiat money with a form of money that would be created on a blockchain? Money only works because people trust it. People use money, and they may not realize that they trust the state and, by extension, the central bank and all the other institutions and authorities associated with it. Starting to use blockchain money instead of fiat money is basically sending a signal to the state that you don't trust it. Not trusting the state basically means not trusting any of its institutions and probably not even the legal system. I dare say that such blockchain money would not work well. Blockchain money essentially erodes the trust between citizens and the state. People do not want states to disappear from the world. People have been used to living in a hierarchical system for millennia, and that will not change because of a new form of money. People may start using blockchain money, but it certainly doesn't mean they want to get rid of the state. If the state is to accept blockchain money, it must be able to enforce the law. Not necessarily because the state wants it, but because the people will demand it. In everyday life, there are many disputes between people. In order to resolve disputes in a civilized manner, it may be necessary for an impartial third party to intervene. For example, if Alice pays Bob for a pre-arranged job through blockchain money and Bob refuses to do the job or does not do it well, Alice will want to get her money back. If Bob refuses, Alice may be in a weaker position as a woman and need a third party to review the case and force Bob to return the money. The functioning of money is necessarily linked to the possibility of resolving disputes. If blockchain money is to work, it must either be with the support of states, or this new form of money must be able to prevent or even resolve disputes. We could now have a long discussion about where the line is between decentralized money and independence from the state. The bottom line is that we are still searching for that line and nobody knows. That's why we don't know what other technologies and extensions of blockchain capabilities we will need. Is decentralized money on a blockchain that can do smart contracts better or not? We dare not answer that at the moment. However, if smart contracts could reduce dependence on institutions and hence the state, it is clear that this would be an undeniable advantage. It would mean that the technology would be able to establish trust between participants so that participants would not have to rely on trust in institutions. That is, on intermediaries who may be less reliable than technology. More than blockchain money Decentralization capabilities will meet the need for increased digitization. The more we want to use decentralized money, the higher our need for decentralized services may become. It is logical. Decentralized money is the wedge between existing financial services and assets. Money can buy, for example, shares. If you want to buy shares with blockchain money, it can be a problem and the operation will be very complicated. You may pay more in fees than if you use money. The question is whether shares should always have their current form, or whether they could exist on a blockchain like money. For all those who use blockchain money, this would be a significant simplification as they could hold shares in the same wallet in which they hold most of their savings. Additionally, they would be able to use decentralized exchanges, so the swap would be seamless. Cardano allows you to tokenize shares. If a company were to issue shares on the blockchain, transparency would increase. A company could decide whether to issue only the exact number of shares or retain the ability to burn and mint shares. Shares are not money. Companies can decide to issue additional shares. It happens routinely. It is up to the people to judge this move. We often hear the opinion that shareholders must trust the company, so blockchain is not needed. Shares are inherently about the holders trusting the company in the context of future success. Shares on the blockchain are about increasing transparency, speeding up auditing, and most importantly making financial transactions easier for blockchain money users and the whole process can be less administratively costly. Why resist the possibility of using Cardano to allow users to swap stablecoins for shares on DEX? The fact that shareholders have to trust the company has nothing to do with the wider and easier use of blockchain money. If someone demands self-custody for money, why shouldn't they for shares? Are NFTs useful? In the context of the demands for increased digitization of society, certainly yes. All copyright documents are usually in paper form. It can be difficult for digital content creators to work with this paper form. How are Internet users supposed to verify who is the author or current owner of a work? The internet has become a hub of entertainment and information. We consume music, information, and news predominantly online. Increasingly, it will be the case that what is written on paper somewhere may be legally relevant but not useful for the Internet. The Internet needs the ability to easily and transparently transfer copyright ideally without having to interact with a third party. It must be easy for users to verify facts, and cryptography together with the Cardano blockchain can solve this problem. NFT technology is not necessarily there just to prevent you from breaking the law by copying digital content. Ownership of the NFT can serve as proof that you have not violated the law by using the image as your account profile photo at a given time. Is it too little and is it an unnecessary use case? It's probably just the beginning. The world hasn't yet grasped and properly understood blockchain technology. The main wave of use cases is yet to come. We are only at the beginning of regulation and adoption. In the context of other technologies and legal readiness, I imagine the number of use cases will grow. As with blockchain money, it is important to remember that the blockchain is not there to resolve disputes, but to record information such as that user X owned token Y at time Z. Blockchain can be a source of truth. We live in a world of misinformation and AI that is capable of creating fake images and even video content. It will become increasingly important to verify the origin of information and the time of its creation. Consumers of information will want to be sure who published the information and when. Consumers today rely essentially on URLs. They trust a third party, such as CNN or the BBC, to verify the information and then present it. Unfortunately, third parties have the ability to distort or even censor information. In the future, if there is information from a well-known personality, people will have a need to verify authenticity. Decentralized identity and blockchain recording can solve this problem. User X in the context of a regular blockchain is just an address where assets can be. Cardano has an identity management solution called Atala PRISM. Through decentralized identity (DID), anyone in the world will be able to cryptographically verify who user X is and if they published information Y at time Z. Information Y can take different forms. Decentralized identity is a necessary part of all mainstream financial services. This brings us back to blockchain money. If you want to apply for a loan in blockchain money, you will probably have to go to a bank with a regular ID. Banks of the future will probably lend you blockchain money, but will still require KYC/AML information just like today. Can a bank that doesn't require KYC/AML emerge on the Cardano platform? Yes, it can, as long as it uses DID. DID will allow disputes to be resolved if they arise, but as long as the loan is repaid on time, the transactions can remain anonymous. Conclusion The greater utility of smart contract platforms like Cardano allows for a better form of blockchain money. The money is not just for payments. There are many other financial services tied to it. Users need to be able to resolve disputes between themselves and for that, we will always need current authorities. Blockchain cannot resolve disputes, but it has the potential to prevent disputes or record necessary proof. This is a big step forward. Trust is present all around us, not just in the use of money. So it is very likely that blockchain technology will find applications in other areas. The opportunities for blockchain applications will grow with capabilities. Without tokens and smart contracts, it is impossible to consider tokenizing stocks and DEXs. Cardano will find applications at places where the first generation of blockchain cannot. Or are we wrong? This view must also be accepted. However, we certainly don't think so, because we would be denying the basic ability of humans to develop technology and find new uses for it. The internet is literally everywhere around you today. Soon you may be accessing it through a Cardano wallet. So what problem does Cardano solve? Let's not look for a clear-cut answer now. It's too early for that. Blockchain generally solves trust problems. Most of the current trust problems are somehow solved and blockchain brings the possibility of improvement. In some cases, it is unnecessary, in others critical. Sometimes we hit dead ends. That's evolution.
