The Blockchain Industry Has Not Shaken Out the Way I Expected

By Kieren James-Lubin. Ethereum (ETH) was conceived in late 2013 and launched in July 2015. I got my start working on Ethereum in summer 2014, which makes it a seemingly unfathomable 10 years in the space.

Ethereum (CRYPTO: ETH) was conceived in late 2013 and launched in July 2015. I got my start working on Ethereum in summer 2014, which makes it a seemingly unfathomable 10 years in the space. When such milestones pass it can be useful to check in on what we expected versus what actually transpired.

Chains and coins have proliferated rather than consolidated

Blockchains have strong network effects, almost by definition. As such, one might expect there to be a handful of blockchains or even a single blockchain where the bulk of end-user activity occurs. Ethereum was created, in part, as “one chain to rule them all,” in contrast with the practice at the time of making a new blockchain for each new feature.

Social networks and stock markets show consolidation behavior — we get approximately one popular social network per purpose (X/Twitter — text, Instagram — images, YouTube — video, and so on). The United States has two popular stock markets. Most countries have one or none, with only the top 20 or so really being globally significant. In contrast, there are approximately 2.5 million cryptocurrencies — up a factor of five from 2021. While many of these coins and chains may not see heavy use, there are more than 50 with a market cap in the billions as of September 2024.

Blockchains and coins built on top of them have been relatively easy to build and finance, so it makes sense that a lot of them have appeared. Ethereum greatly facilitated this activity, reducing the launch of a new token to a small code snippet or even a few clicks. Private investment often chases hot areas, with tons of funding flowing to one particular category — such as AI and blockchain, or in the past, things such as ride-share companies.

We usually see consolidation come after with one to three winners consuming most market share, and other players being acquired or going out of business. In contrast, blockchains and blockchain-native tokens are oddly resilient, with some projects sticking around forever even if they are no longer actively developed. And some come back — Dogecoin (CRYPTO: DOGE), for instance, had a long quiet period but has seen a resurgence of activity from 2020 onward.

The “markets for everything” thesis has not borne out (yet)

Around 2014 or so, every lengthy discussion about the uncensorable nature of blockchain technology would eventually turn to assassination markets — markets which allow speculators to bet on the time of someone’s death. Assassination markets did in fact first appear in 2018, but do not appear to have had any sustained presence. Prediction markets have gotten popular in areas that were popular before the blockchains existed — elections and sports — with huge volumes of late.

Less dramatically, decentralized on-chain insurance was conceptualized early on, but seems to remain fringe. One can imagine an infinity of micro-insurance markets — will my train arrive on time? And if not, can I be compensated? But the mere capability is not enough for these markets to exist. People aren’t interested enough for these markets to be functional — yet.

Institutional adoption has proceeded differently than some expected

Institutional adoption has been more about new assets than migrating business processes while legacy assets have been slower to get on chain than expected.

In the very early days of the tech industry, it was common for the government (defense, in particular) to be your first customer. Deep-pocketed institutions employed technologists who could work with not-quite-mature products and get a better outcome versus what was then in use. This could have been the adoption path for blockchain technology, especially considering the significant interest from the legacy financial institutions.

Instead, numerically successful use cases for larger institutions have leaned towards the consumer. The technology is perhaps too transformative and difficult to adopt incrementally for legacy players to use for core business processes. New asset classes have been of primary interest, with brands such as Nike (NYSE:NKE) earning a remarkable $185 million in non-fungible token (NFT) revenue, while the iShares Bitcoin Trust (NYSE:BITI) is managing something north of $20 billion.

Startups have had more success bringing legacy assets on chain than legacy institutions. At $120 billion in market capitalization, Tether (CRYPTO: USDT) is the most obvious success story. Major financial institutions have much more AUM, with BlackRock (NYSE:BLK) in the lead at $9 trillion. But relatively speaking, they have moved very little on-chain to date.

The industry has not shaken out the way I expected at all. It’s been strange, disappointing in some ways and amazing in others. In his 1997 shareholder letter — a year in which Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) made $150m in revenue — Jeff Bezos referred to the Web as