EDI
Freight Trust & Clearing Network
Mentions (24Hr)
0.00% Today
Reddit Posts
New: Edinburgh Decentralization Index
What are Smart Contracts and How Do They Work?
What are Smart Contracts and How Do They Work? (Deep analysis)
Mentions
tldr; A team from the University of Edinburgh developed the Edinburgh Decentralization Index (EDI) to provide real-time insights into the decentralization of major blockchain projects. The EDI Dashboard, showcasing initial results, focuses on the decentralization of consensus among blockchains like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Cardano, and others. Cardano leads in several decentralization metrics, including the Nakamoto Coefficient. The EDI project, funded by Input Output Global (IOG) and embracing an open-source ethos, aims to offer a benchmark for quantifiable decentralization and serves as a resource for various stakeholders interested in blockchain decentralization levels. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
I respectfully disagree with your assumptions about me. I don't believe I have the ability or will to change your mind. I don't have time to research it but I imagine bitcoin has plenty of interested parties that will lobby governments and provide grants for 'research'. Doesn't need to be a CEO. It is not a secrete that IOG funded the EDI, but you felt the need to highlight the fact further. A true saviour of the people.
all science has a bias, that why you repeat experiments, publish research and enter it into peer review to make sure that the methodology is sound. If the eth team created something similar and came up with the same results as EDI, then there is validation. and if they return widly different findings then you can start a conversation about decentralisation from a platform of science and methods rather than what we had up until now, which was half-informed nerds yelling at each other online.
Well in last year's Messari report^ the metrics used were: * Client Diversity * Hosting Distribution * Geographic Distribution *^ Which you can read [here](https://messari.io/report/evaluating-validator-decentralization-geographic-and-infrastructure-distribution-in-proof-of-stake-networks) or look up the Github repo for their data and methodology [here](https://github.com/theSamPadilla/blockchain-infra-decentralization-metrics).* Of these they rated client diversity the most important. Far more likely than any potential attack that requires control of validators, is the simple possibility of bugs in client implementations, which as we've seen can stop a chain from working if that client makes up a supermajority. Compare the difference in impact when there is a bug in Solana's main client - which takes the network offline, to the bugs in the Besu and Nethermind clients for Ethereum. Besu going down made no difference to the chain and all Netheremind did was delayed the deterministic finality, blocks continued to be produced, transactions went through etc. As well as the 3 areas identified by Messari, another important factor which they didn't look at is the number of nodes. This metric is important as it shows the robustness of the network and its resistance to control by block producers. Bitcoin certainly used to have the most nodes and I assume this is still the case now. This has been useful in the past when miners tried to push through an unpopular upgrade. Having lots of nodes run by normal(ish) users allowed the small block favouring community to win 'the blocksize wars'. From what I see of the EDI data, most of the metrics that they have published are just variations on ways of looking at the distribution of stake between validators... which is certainly one important area, but as others in this thread and elsewhere have pointed out, they haven't even done that properly and have made several 'mistakes' that all happen to favour Cardano. These include [not counting](https://twitter.com/cerkoryn/status/1763789219812577601) Coinbase's Cardano validators as a single entity, which reduces the presented Nakamoto Coefficient from 58 to about 40... but they did count Ethereum's Lido operators as a single entity despite them being independently run (the Lido DAO just control who can be set up as a validator, not what they do with them), certainly more so than Coinbase. [That would give](https://www.rated.network/?network=mainnet&view=pool&timeWindow=1d&page=1&poolType=all) a Nakamoto Coefficient of 37 if you wanted to get to 33% to just delay finalization, or 39 if you wanted to match to the cutoff used in the EDI of 50%. Oh, what a surprise, they accidentally inflated Cardano's results by almost 50% from 40 to 58, and woops they also counted Ethereum in a way that reduced them from ~37 to 3. Would you deny that it's a little bit strange that a research project founded by Cardano, funded by Cardano, and headed up by a leader who still works for Cardano, with several other researchers who also previously worked on Cardano, would make a couple of errors which happen to change the data from Cardano being ~8% better than it's nearest competitor to being ~2,000% better than anything else. Doesn't that at least make the possibility of a little bit of bias plausible to you? But like I've said, that's not even the most obvious part, it's the fact that they have only published results for various ways of looking at one part of decentralization which Cardano scores highest on, not any of the other areas that don't show Cardano in such a favoured light. If you still aren't convinced then there is no point in me continuing to waste my time in this exchange. I'll just wish you good luck, because you've shown that you'll need it.
According the site below, Ethereum needs at least 66% of the total staked ether to reach consensus so the Nakamoto coefficient threshold should be 33% not 50%. The definition on the EDI page says 50% so it is confusing. [https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/pos-vs-pow/](https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/pos-vs-pow/)
We're not ignoring anything; in fact we invite you or anyone else to participate in substantive discussion about how to make it better. I really don't know how you think the EDI should have been formed? Do you disagree that we would benefit from having an industry standard for measuring this? I think it would be glorious if we could get buy-in from the Bitcoin, Ethereum, Binance coin, Solana, and further ecosystems down the line. I don't know if that will happen, but I hope it does.
Your assumptions are incorrect. The EDI counts blocks produced by each unique pool/miner hash, which does apply fairly universally to all blockchains (they all produce blocks). There is a method to allow for "pool clusters" which again uses pool/miner hashes, but clusters them together under a single entity. There are various different data sources that can be used for this. I plugged in some independent data and the numbers worked out to roughly match what community tools report.
Thank you for critiquing the methodology instead of attacking the researchers like most in this thread. You are correct that Lido is currently being counted as a single entity. The EDI currently only looks at block data which shows Lido as a single block producer. What should probably happen is that the [top # of addresses](https://etherscan.io/token/tokenholderchart/0x5a98fcbea516cf06857215779fd812ca3bef1b32) to get >50% control of Lido should be added to the Nakamoto Coefficient instead of just 1 count for Lido. By my rough estimate, this would move Ethereum's NC from 2-3 to 12-13. I'm trying to figure out how to add this programmatically without simply hard-coding Lido as a special case. The other big thing to note here is that the EDI data only goes up to June 2023 at the moment. By my estimate, the 50% and 66% numbers for NC and Tau seem to match what that other sources suggest at the time. This [Medium article](https://divastaking.medium.com/the-state-of-ethereum-staking-in-q3-2023-2a6fc9804355) from 4 months ago shows NC=2 and Tau@66%=3 with a screenshot from your same source.
Do you really think these people are total morons? The EDI is being developed for a tool that can be used by the whole industry. They will 100% make sure that everyone consider it legit and fair. If not, it would be a failure and a waste of time. It’s not like these researchers are sitting “well shit, they found out about our work for IOG, quick come up with a solution!”. The EDI is a work in progress and everyone, including the Ethereum Foundation, are welcome to contribute. How about you chill with your assumptions of fraud and appreciate that someone is actually trying to create a comprehensive standard.
Glad to see this thread. Aside from the topics mentioned, some of the best analysis about shortcomings and room for improvement, imo, are here: Missing Coinbase/CEX pool groups. Community tools reporting MAV have an estimate of 30 or 32 https://x.com/cerkoryn/status/1763789219812577601 Adding additional chains and more pools https://x.com/cerkoryn/status/1764076807769231546 This analysis commended by Tim Harrison from IOG > Thanks for digging in and providing valuable input here. The EDI is a work in progress and will only get better with further contributions like yours. IOG is initially sponsoring the EDI, but independence & lack of bias is core to its mission. If you're not already in touch with the EDI team, LMK & I'll happily connect you.👍 Sauce: https://x.com/timbharrison/status/1764269725549273294
> must resist being captured Why worry about capture by the legacy system when EDI is just a front for Cardano anyway: [The director](https://www.ed.ac.uk/informatics/blockchain/edi/team) of the project is also the Chief Scientist at IOHK [the company founded by Hoskinson that builds Cardano](https://iohk.io/about/). Not only that, but the entire project was [set up by and in partnership with Cardano](https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2022/11/18/cardano-builder-iog-and-university-of-edinburgh-to-create-first-ever-index-to-provide-industry-standard-metric-for-crypto-decentralization/). Oh, and it's not just the director that works for Cardano, almost everyone involved that you look into has links to Cardano... as examples: one of the two maintainers of the repo has their work for IOHK [on their resume](https://dimkarakostas.com/dimkarakostas.pdf) and the other has previously [published papers on Cardano, with IOHK leadership](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3533271.3561787)... we can go on if you like but you get the idea!
Now do any other eth "research" article.. Feel free to check their work. Something that can actually be done with the EDI...
Do you get that this is open source project and if you feel there are something wrong you can contribute? As per your metrics like node count you can do Messari check. Warning: you will not like what you see there. Basically if you really feel this is all wrong in this EDI thats also fine. Cheers
I for one am really excited the EDI is finally out, even in it's incomplete state. It's been fifteen years since this industry was founded and ever since, every project in the space has claimed to be "decentralized" as defined by themselves. This is untenable. After fifteen years, it's high time we formally define and benchmark objectively, empirically, what decentralization actually is. It's one of, if not the most, important pillars that differentiate our asset class from everything that has come before. The paralyzing question has always been the how. We are getting pretty good as an industry at building systems that allow adversarial parties to work together to achieve a common good, but could we get engineers, researchers, and/or scientists from more than one protocol in the same room to discuss objective standards? Effectively, no, because it has not happened. I don't give a hot damn about your biases for or against Cardano; They have laid down a gauntlet, not only by publishing their findings, but by: open sourcing the methodology and the mathematical formulas used to come to their findings, inviting collaboration from the public to strengthen the accuracy of all aspects of the EDI. It's now time for skeptics to put up or shut up. I think it's completely understandable to assume that the EDI is by some measure biased toward Cardano, but burden of proof is yours now. I won't abide simply bitching in the comments of social media about EDI as it currently is to be a reasonable or noteworthy rebuttal. You need to do some work yourself: go to the github; research and understand the EDI; point out flaws; provide more or better data; make constructive comments. If you don't feel qualified or comfortable doing that, then you need to put forth effort to signal boost the EDI to those you do trust to contribute. This is a living document. let's work together to evolve what's been laid out to be a non partisan tool for every protocol to aspire to. More than anything, we in the industry must resist being captured by the legacy system in one way or another. "Sufficient" decentralization is the only way out.
I’d have to agree with you there and I’ve avoided any kind of meme coin promoted by NFT profile pic pumpers and still have been quite successful. The cream rises to the top (usually) and stays there year after year and that’s where my money goes. The other hurdle is regulatory clarity. After all the shenanigans from the SEC a good score on the newly released EDI tool from the University of Edinburgh is now one of my pre-requisites to crypto investing. Definitely an interesting tool. https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/blockchain/2023/10/25/measuring-blockchain-decentralisation-on-the-consensus-layer-a-tool-by-the-edi-team/
I for one am really excited the EDI is finally out, even in it's incomplete state. It's been fifteen years since this industry was founded and ever since, every project in the space has claimed to be "decentralized" as defined by themselves. This is untenable. After fifteen years, it's high time we formally define and benchmark objectively, empirically, what decentralization actually is. It's one of, if not the most, important pillars that differentiate our asset class from everything that has come before. The paralyzing question has always been the how. We are getting pretty good as an industry at building systems that allow adversarial parties to work together to achieve a common good, but could we get engineers, researchers, and/or scientists from more than one protocol in the same room to discuss objective standards? Effectively, no, because it has not happened. I don't give a hot damn about your biases for or against Cardano; They have laid down a gauntlet, not only by publishing their findings, but by: - open sourcing the methodology and the mathematical formulas used to come to their findings, - inviting collaboration from the public to strengthen the accuracy of all aspects of the EDI. It's now time for skeptics to put up or shut up. I think it's completely fair to assume that the EDI is by some measure biased toward Cardano, but burden of proof is yours now. I won't abide simply bitching in the comments of social media about EDI as it currently is to be a reasonable or noteworthy rebuttal. You need to do some work yourself: go to the github; research and understand the EDI; point out flaws; provide more or better data; make constructive comments. If you don't feel qualified or comfortable doing that, then you need to put forth effort to signal boost the EDI to those you do trust to contribute. This is a living document. let's work together to evolve what's been laid out to be a non partisan tool for every protocol to aspire to. More than anything, we in the industry must resist being captured by the legacy system in one way or another. "Sufficient" decentralization is the only way out.
> ...releasing in this state shows a lack of competence or a lack of objectivity. Right, so, if there's a fundamental flaw in their approach to this whole thing, you'd rather they build the entire Index before anyone points it out...? It would clearly be much better to find that out earlier in the process, so they can correct whatever the flaw is _before_ it taints more data (and then they only have one dataset to go back and revisit, instead of _eight_...) > At least by highlighting the flaws here I can inform readers who might otherwise miss them... I promise you, it's not your responsibility to protect the rest of us from what we "might otherwise miss"... The EDI project has been nothing but transparent about the fact that this is 1 dataset of a planned 8 datasets, and that the next one is in-progress and will be released soon... If someone misses that fact, that's on them for not paying better attention, but it's certainly not the project's fault... > You know _you_ could just as easily relay these criticisms? You want me to submit _hearsay_ objections to their data/methodologies? Get bent.
I've long thought that Nakamoto coefficient is woefully inadequate in grading decentralization, as evidenced by blockchains with questionable decentralization in the last cycle being able to lay claim to being extremely fast and extremely decentralized, the latter due to Nakamoto coefficient and being able to point to its very basic criteria - a measure of the smallest number of independent entities that can act collectively to shut down a blockchain. One of the big issues with this metric is the "independent entities" part, and it's always conveniently assumed that validators on a blockchain are just random joes like you and me. The reality is on some blockchains those validators are run by VCs like Andreessen Horowitz and other original investors of the blockchain, so rewards are funneled back to the top 1%. Who also probably received an extremely large share of the original token allocation (happy to see that a tokenomics measurement is coming soon to the EDI)! Could this source be biased, as it has connections to Cardano? Sure. But as others said it's open source and there to critique, and it's past time to start prioritizing and advancing the concept of decentralization in a meaningful way, especially when it's clear, to me, that Nakaomoto coefficient is inadequate and has been abused by less decentralized blockchains to make the less educated think they are buying into something actually decentralized, like BTC. Also for the record I am not a Cardano maxi and hold BTC, ETH, ADA, DOGE, and some other alts.
> You're undermining everyone else, engineers scientists behind EDI if all you can say is the chief tech is a member of IOHK. They're pretty transparent if you spent the time to read it. This. I mean, imagine jumping into the comments to shit on Cardano for openly collaborating with a well-respected university for the past two years, in an effort to define and standardize what it means for a blockchain to be centralized or decentralized, instead of, you know, calling-out literally all other blockchain projects who, collectively, haven't given one single shit about supporting this effort or helping to further this goal... The research is published, the tool is open-source, and they're actively encouraging anyone who's willing to participate... So why aren't Monero and/or Algorand and/or Avalanche and/or any number of literally dozens if not hundreds of well-funded, well-staffed L1's jumping on-board an open, research-and-data-driven project to help create the yardstick by which all projects could be objectively measured...? > Focus on the metrics if you want to be more credible with your critique The metrics are barely even an issue. To all those who are throwing a fit about how they've 'cherry-picked the only set of metrics that make Cardano look good'... There will be _eight_ sets of metrics, and this is just the first set they've completed... Even the tool itself says that the next set of metrics (Tokenomics) is "coming soon"... So come on Solana and/or Polkadot and/or Cosmos and/or any and all other major players in this space, come and collaborate on this and let's get it done!
It was just released. Not all metrics have been added. I was making an exaggerated point to show that the whole decentralization aspect is more nuanced than just 'X Coin has the most hashpower/hardware, therefore it is extremely decentralized' It depends on alot of factors that we currently have no standard for to measure. EDI is a good start to make it a universally accepted standard.
I would like you to express your concerns in the EDI report. I’m sure you would have lots of valid suggestions
If only there were several other things measured in the EDI
I'm pointing out that it is pretty convenient that the only metrics they display are the ones which suggest the most decentralized network is the one which the EDI's first named member is the lead scientist for... If that doesn't strike you as comically biased then I'm sure you will also believe CH's stories about jumping out of attack helicopters and starting a PhD etc...
The site only displays information regarding consensus, which is one of the 8 categories. The EDI obviously isn't much of an index yet, but it's a start. Do you think they should have added other metrics than the 7 they show for consensus, or are you implying that they are fabricating data because one of the researchers are involved with IOHK? (the company that has hundreds of academics from several universities working for them).
You're undermining everyone else, engineers scientists behind EDI if all you can say is the chief tech is a member of IOHK. They're pretty transparent if you spent the time to read it. Focus on the metrics if you want to be more credible with your critique
Good idea, terrible execution. Questionable metric choices and the explanation of metric choices leave much to be desired, terrible choice of supported chains, poor documentation. I'll stick with Messari's report until EDI gets their shit together. messari's decentralization report: https://messari.io/report/evaluating-validator-decentralization-geographic-and-infrastructure-distribution-in-proof-of-stake-networks
Nice comment (you got my upvote). I really like ALGO and I have it as part of my portfolio because it represents my values in the Cryptocurrency space. Of course, it is more Decentralized than Solana, which in a few years would rely only on Google to host the entirety of its blockchain. I, just mentioned that it has some Centralization points (not that is "Centralized") and I pointed out that is making an effort to Decentralize itself more. Also, I agree that Decentralization is not binary, but a spectrum. There are a lot of different parameters when we talk about Decentralization, and there is not even a consensus as to what "Decentralization" really is. I don't want to shill more Cardano, but Charles Hoskinson and his company (IOG) have funded an independent scientific team to try to define and measure the Decentralization of all blockchains. It is called the "Edinburgh Decentralisation Index (EDI)". It is not out yet but it will be an interesting view to define Decentralization with a lot of different metrics, from a purely scientific view. Have a nice day and don't forget to vote on the latest Governance Period!
I would like to see the technical specifications of this so called blockchain to see if they are really utilizing blockchain or if IBM and DL freight are just coopting the name in order to hype their products. Traceability existed prior to blockchain, it was essentially assigning batch numbers to all inventory which was traced from inventory increment all the way to the decrement when shipping to the customer. These batch numbers can be referenced if something goes wrong at the end customer, say a returned item with some sort of issue like e-coli. Then, the shipper could locate other shipments related to that same batch and even quarantine them in their system. This is not blockchain, but some may unscrupulously describe it as such. So, I am left wondering. Same thing with automated payment processing. This could simply be EDI exchange of advance shipping notices and the return of shipping documents back to the ERP system with the actual costs which take about 5 days to calculate after delivery. These happen based off of a load ID not necessarily blockchain.
Look up what he is doing and not what he is saying.. You can look up what work he has done in congress to promote fair and sensible regulations.. almost got it through but all politicians distanced themselves from crypto after ftx unfortunately. He has started initiatives to create international standards for the crypto industry like the EDI (decentralization index) and alot if other stuff in the space.
>Everything you said about the decentralized brain of Cardano is really beautiful, but also aplicable to almost any blockchain development… Not really. Where's the decentralised brain for the upgrading of Bitcoin? How would you go about getting smart contracts added to Bitcoin if you wanted to? You couldn't. The main guys decide all that stuff. The problem is that any crypto can "say" it is decentralised... and then reject any additions anyone suggests. The thing about Cardano is that, because it's based on "the science" then it's the science that decides what to do. For example, the EDI (Edinburgh Decentralisation Index) will scientifically figure out makes something more or less decentralised and then measure the various cryptos. Then each crypto will be able to do things to move towards getting a higher decentralisation score. But will the various cryptos do that? How would you get BTC to move towards more decentralisation? Where can you vote?
tldr; The University of Edinburgh and Input Output Global have teamed up to create a blockchain decentralization index. The Edinburgh Decentralization Index (EDI) is the first of its kind and will use a "research-based" methodology developed at the university. The index will provide live tracking of assets "underpinned by a continuously calculated and reviewed methodology." *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
Good morning my fellow crypto holders. Looks like today will be a stable day. 
700 billion in PPP loans where forgiven to small business and corporations ...didnt hear anyone bitching about that...... EDI Associates, a restaurant-based company, will not have to repay two loans worth a total of $1.7 million in federal government loans, according to the report. The two loans totaled $711,708 and $996,392, respectively, and both loans were forgiven. Other notable figures benefiting from Paycheck Protection Program loan forgiveness include Khloe Kardashian, Tom Brady, and Reese Witherspoon. These people really need those loans....but you people are crying about student loans.
I hold a very large bag of VET but what they're doing on the blockchain is already done with EDI systems. So, is it just doing what the EDI does anyway but using blockchain tech, thereby not solving any actual problems?
Working in supply chain I see a lot of proposed uses for blockchain and the vast majority or just replacements for old EDI protocols like EDIFACT or X12. For those the first question after the pitch is done is always, some version of how is this better and cheaper than an API? The other uses are usually around replacing original documents, like cargo-x, which somehow scammed the Egyptian government into requiring their service to replace emailing pdf documents with uploading pdf documents into their portal.
They are in last phase of testing EDI connectivity between earth and another planets. Once completed, then BTC will be live to trade on other planets. I heard Juniper is very bullish about Bitcoin.
What I mean is yes. Bitcoin transactions. There is send and receive. Final. No take backs. But could you set something up for online payments that at checkout ask you for sats/bitcoin amount and TWO recipient addresses, one for vendor and one for you. But neither of those is the actual address where the funds are going. The funds will go to, I don’t know, some smart contract address on layer two or some shit so on the blockchain it’s gone but neither sender or receiver have the deposit. The deposit is confirmed on the blockchain though. The smartcontract would need to be set up to receive EDI messages where the vendor needs to submit shipping information to fulfill their obligation, but they still don’t get paid yet. The receiver needs to login and accept/reject or something. If vendor did their part and customer did theirs then the smartcontract sends do the vendor.
Ok. Look at EDI then. It's microcap
It’s kind of clunky design to name VAs with gendered or human names anyway. I can only imagine the endless tired jokes about playing Despacito that every Alexa has had to deal with. Can’t we just call them something like EDI or TARS?
Could be any number of ways. Maybe seller and buyer agree that proof of delivery is sufficient. Similar to the ANSI EDI architecture where payment is r released until there is a receipt, acceptance and advanced shipping notification, all three EDI transactions need to be present before funds are released. Maybe if the value is high enough maybe there is a trusted third party to very all terms have been met before they sign. It is really up to the seller and buyer. You and I could buy the same thing from the same vendor but have different terms.
Also, and I can't stress this enough- logistics will be dead last in industries to pick up blockchain technology. The industry does not take change management very well. It was using okidata printers until 5 years ago. AS400 systems until about 7 years ago. It's still using EDI instead of API feeds. These people are stubborn mules and it's compounded by the governmental regulations of two hundred countries. Will adoption happen in time? Sure. The next 5 years? No. Hell no. Hell fucking no.. I would bet my entire life savings on that not happening.
They don't understand that blockchains are not equal to crypto currencies. It's effectively a database that is stored on a distributed network. Programmers who can't find a use case for this are unimaginative. The assumption that every blockchain use case is just a cryptocurrency with a fluctuating fiat price is just sadly uninformed. Working in software development, I can't event count how many times I wished there was some kind of central database that everyone can access, just so I don't have to write unique EDI interfaces for every bloody courier. What I would say though is that perhaps a blockchain token doesn't translate to classroom points. Like you said they need to be non-tradeable to avoid undercutting earning the points. But then you don't need a blockchain for that, since there will only be one kind of transaction, to and from the teacher wallet. Perhaps it works to allow them to query other students balance? I don't know. I think blockchains are a fine thing to teach, but it doesn't necessarily need to be about tokenisation. Don't have any good ideas myself though.
I work in this industry too and this is absolutely correct. I'm still regularly required to write bespoke EDI integrations. There is just no way a block chain will replace this until it contains baked in functionality for supply chain management, or a killer dApp. VeChain has no major utility beyond being an okay smart chain. VeChains real offering is a suite of software that uses VeChainThor as a database instead of, say, SQL, for the purpose of using block chain as a selling point. We have to start looking at the block chain technology, rather than the native token of that block chain, if we want to discuss real utility.
Honestly if anyone expects crypto to be adopted into logistics in a major way in the next 10 years, I've got bad news for you. The industry as a whole is so behind the times they're just now starting to get on board with API instead of EDI feeds. These motherfuckers were using AS400 systems as recently as 5 years ago. Many of them still do. And those systems were replaced by ones that were built in C sharp. Not web based applications. C sharp. This isn't just podunk mom and pop shops either. These are Fortune 500 companies. These are top 10 freight forwarders. I've worked in logistics for 15 years. IT in logistics for 8. Believe me when I tell you it will be damn near dead last for crypto adoption.
Blockchain can replace EDI transactions. I think it comes down to if these large institutions want to take the leap and invest in the tech.
Retail investor adoption is happening (people are buying and holding crypto currencies). The problem is that there are a lot of cryptocurrencies, and as a business operator you have to weigh up the technology vs the numbers of users vs the price stability. This is hard to do when several very good crypto have the same use cases (ie smart contract platforms), but some are hindered by poor UX, fees, esoteric technology, etc. Why should Amazon accept Algo over Eth, tezos, Dot, BTC, XLM, Nano, ADA, Terra, and so on. I'm a software developer who's worked with supply chain software, and I can safely say so far i can't see a use for VeChain as a token. As a block chain, it's not solving a whole lot, and serves simply as a backend EDI platform for VeChain's (the company) various software offerings as an ISV. If VeChain suffers as a business, then you just have a regular smart contract block chain that supports arbitrary data storage. It's not exactly new or best in class for this. But this is true for a lot of crypto projects. The block chain is often secondary to a reliance on propriety software offering that uses said blockchain. The whole industry needs a big trim down, and the remaining survivors need time to mature. Personally, I want to start seeing functionality baked in to the block chain, rather than relying on smart contracts. For example, imagine if VeChain was a multi-ledger blockchain that natively supported industry standard fields for prod orders, warehouse transfers and shipments. Smart contracts provide bespoke business functionality, but all movements eventually routed through the main chain to provide a fully traceable universal global supply chain, rather than a generic smart contract platform. A decentralised economy is more than just money, and yield bearing dApps
DRG, EDI, ELA (this one sucked the most incredible concept), ICX all down 90% from when I got in around 2017-2018
Blockchain can be used in EDI/API systems allowing secure manifests/BOL/ASNs between venders and suppliers.
EDI, Freight Trust. Add Sam Bacha to the list of scam artists.
No untraceable coin is as untraceable as hard cash. As soon as you understand that, and understand that hard cash is used for all of these things you can start to understand the arguements for privacy. I am not going to go into your specific points - because I don't really think that most of them mean anything (Narco-states for instance is just a propaganda term to fuel hate towards a specific country to justify military conflict in an area, sure drug lords are a thing - but its time we realized the United States 50 year long war on drugs failed, and was never really about stopping drugs. Instead lets talk about why privacy is a requirement for crypto to go main stream. So many businesses rely on being able to negotiate pricing with their suppliers/vendors. if those purchase orders happened on a public block chain competitors might gain a competitive edge by being able to renegotiate their pricing, or just by knowing more about your costs. I talked about blockchain with smart contracts possibly being a replacement for EDI at my last org if the transactions per second ever got high enough... But it could never happen on a public block chain so long as the details of the transactions weren't encrypted.
I trust in the experiment SHIBA INU has outlined in their white paper. I come from a background in B2B solutions specifically EDI. Being a 40 year old millennial my perspective is that I see DAO as the future and the present about adoption. This coin represents a new generation picking up the torch as the baby boomers retire from the workforce. I see DAO possibly being a hybrid solution. Gemba Kaizen and Circular Economies sound interesting too. I know I'm way out of my league here as I just got introduced to SHIBA on May 15th. However, to me the point of the experiment is to provide a blueprint for positive continuous improvement voted on by the community for the community. Trust in the experiment, trust in the community. This is the way.
Sunny, thank you for being part of this AMA How do you see Walmart using VET to complent electronic data interchange (EDI) or to replace it? What are some applications that PWC and other auditors could use besides track and trace? What sort of partnerships may you already have with established warehouse management software or any sort of other established and widely proliferated business software used for enterprise resource planning?
What you just explained about EDI is different than what your original sentence said. Then you do know that the technology already exists. You keep trying to trash Vechain specifically when this would apply to any supply chain blockchain. IBM or any other private/public project. It either works as a concept or it doesn't. Your point about the cattle is completely valid. Any object where the destruction of the object is an expected part of the process would be far easier to spoof. Any object where the tag is embedded and expected to get to end customer would not suffer quite the same way. Side chains and shards are still verified on the main chain. If the data is stored on a side chain but verified on a main chain you could better control access to the data while maintaining a relevant size for ledger verification. Also encrypted data on blockchains aren't stored as singular data points. They are spread across multiple or numerous nodes. And again you are ignoring that blockchain stored data can be restricted in ways that conventional data storage can't. In the case of Vechain and DHL it is Vechain listed alongside the likes of Google, Toyota, and so on. They demonstrate Vechain tech in their innovation center. Vechain is pushed as the blockchain solution of DNVGL. If you are implying that they are not legit that is obviously not the case. If blockchain works for any of the use cases that we are discussing then they will be successful. If it doesn't then all the supply blockchains will struggle and fail and it won't be specific to Vechain.
As someone who works in EDI, the idea of having blockchain B2B transactions is very interesting to me.
FWIW, it is Revelation, not “Revelations”. And oh boy do my circles think the crypto future is ushering this in ... as they did RFID/chipping, UBL, and bar coding, and EDI before that. Revelation 13:16-17 ... my supporting all of this is not popular. Keep the smart watch on the left hand and all is gold. :-)