> Blockchain, no matter how good it might be or might have been, is clearly not that system due to its now tarnished reputation at this point in time.
I never understand how people can consider the reputation of glorified timestamped linked lists to be "tarnished". This isn't a company or even a particular piece of software, it's a class of data structures. You're trying to tell me that a particular way of structuring data has a reputation that can be tarnished?
Someone comes out with a new database called "BigBucksDB" that uses a previously unknown technology called "blockchain." Suddenly every scammer and grifter decides to pump up this new "BigBucksDB" and emphasizes how safe and secure it is, thanks to blockchain, because all transactions are public and the ledger or whatever can't be modified in any way except to append new data. Then the companies using "BigBucksDB" decide to transfer all of their customers funds into their own accounts at a real bank and declare bankruptcy. What was the point of implementing "blockchain" in the first place? What use case can it possibly have for future services that would be worth taking a risk on it to implement when its primary use case for crypto transactions just fell apart? I know practically nothing about blockchain except how it was touted in the media as something that was supposed to make it difficult to modify crypto transactions and commit fraud. That fraud has still managed to be committed. What was even the point?
> Then the companies using "BigBucksDB" decide to transfer all of their customers funds into their own accounts at a real bank and declare bankruptcy.
Not your keys, not your coins. If some random company that you don't trust has permission on the chain to transfer your funds, you're not doing it right.
> That fraud has still managed to be committed.
FTX was plain old fashioned fraud, the fraud wasn't committed on a blockchain. Ironically, blockchains (in particular decentralized exchanges and "DeFi") are a solution to the type of fraud FTX committed. They purported to be in custody of their customer's funds, while in reality they frittered them away, because there was no transparency. From the perspective of people who had Bitcoin and Ether in their own custody, the chain has been chugging along as normal.
> Not your keys, not your coins. If some random company that you don't trust has permission on the chain to transfer your funds, you're not doing it right.
0 caution about this was offered in the MSM. Everyone agrees that the average crypto investor was clueless about how it all worked behind the scenes, but that didn't stop them from FOMO and wanting to jump on the fail whale anyway because investment firms like Sequoia Capital pumped it up.
> FTX was plain old fashioned fraud, the fraud wasn't committed on a blockchain.
Whether it was legitimately committed on a blockchain or not is not really relevant here. It was marketed as being a way to prevent fraud for all these exchanges who claimed they were using it for its intended purpose. How is the average investor, who got shafted thinking everything was safe thanks to this emerging new technology, supposed to keep thinking that any exchanges existing presently are going to implement it the way it was intended if they got so duped by what was supposed to be the one exchange that legitimized the whole industry?
I believe that average investors (without domain-specific knowledge) should not be investing in crypto at this point in time because the tech is too immature and there are too many pitfalls, so everything you said is consistent with my beliefs.
Another ten years from now we'll have social recovery wallets, better regulatory frameworks and bulletproof ETFs - and that's the point where average investors might consider some sort of nontrivial allocation in their retirement accounts. Then again, people still get screwed left and right nowadays through traditional investment means such as shady financial advisors peddling high expense ratio active funds, so perhaps the answer is that safe investing will always require some minimum amount of domain-specific knowledge.
But in the mean time, companies will consider building on its APIs and data structure ideas regardless of whether the general public sees it as "tarnished" as an investment option.
I never understand how people can consider the reputation of glorified timestamped linked lists to be "tarnished". This isn't a company or even a particular piece of software, it's a class of data structures. You're trying to tell me that a particular way of structuring data has a reputation that can be tarnished?