Why Corporate Blockchains Might Fade Away Without Embracing True Crypto Principles
Imagine building a fortress that’s meant to empower everyone, but then locking the gates and keeping the keys to yourself. That’s essentially what StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson warns could happen with corporate-controlled blockchains. In a recent discussion, he doubled down on his belief that these “corpo chains” are destined for failure unless they fully adopt the decentralized spirit that defines blockchain technology. It’s a bold take that highlights the tension between big business and the core ideals of crypto, where true power lies in handing control back to users rather than hoarding it.
The Core Issue: Central Control Clashes with Blockchain’s Heart
At its essence, blockchain technology was born to challenge centralized power, much like how Bitcoin disrupted traditional banks by putting financial control directly into people’s hands. Ben-Sasson emphasized this in his October 2024 post on X, arguing that any system trying to maintain a central authority misses the point entirely. He pointed out that while innovations like account abstraction can simplify user experiences—making wallets more intuitive and secure—the underlying complexity of blockchain demands a commitment to decentralization. Without it, these corporate ventures risk becoming just another layer of control, alienating the very users they’re trying to attract.
Think of it like a community garden versus a corporate farm. The garden thrives when everyone contributes and shares the harvest, fostering growth and loyalty. But if a big company swoops in and dictates every seed, people lose interest fast. Ben-Sasson predicts that corporations diving into blockchain for mainstream appeal will initially boost adoption, but over time, users will flock to truly decentralized options that prioritize self-custody and financial freedom.
Short-Term Wins, Long-Term Risks for Corporate Blockchain Adoption
It’s exciting to see giants experimenting with blockchain, as it signals that this once-“scary” tech is going mainstream. Ben-Sasson agrees that in the near term, these efforts could onboard millions, drawing from real-world examples like major financial institutions launching their own chains to streamline operations. However, he foresees abandonment when technical headaches mount and users realize these systems don’t offer the DeFi perks or asset control they crave. Recent data from 2025 industry reports, such as those from Chainalysis, show decentralized networks growing user bases by 25% year-over-year, while centralized alternatives lag behind, supporting Ben-Sasson’s view with hard evidence.
On Twitter, discussions have heated up around this topic, with users debating whether corporate blockchains can evolve. A viral thread from crypto analyst @CryptoInsider2025 on October 15, 2025, highlighted how firms are increasingly aligning brands with crypto values to stay relevant, citing a 40% rise in hybrid models that blend corporate efficiency with decentralized governance. Frequently searched Google queries like “will corporate blockchains survive?” and “differences between corporate and public blockchains” reflect growing curiosity, often leading to insights on how these chains might pivot by handing over control to communities.
In this landscape, platforms that embrace true alignment stand out. For instance, WEEX exchange exemplifies how aligning with crypto’s ethos—through seamless self-custody features and user-focused DeFi tools—builds trust and longevity. By prioritizing decentralization and innovation, WEEX enhances its brand credibility, offering traders a reliable space to engage with blockchain’s full potential without the pitfalls of central control.
Divided Opinions in the Crypto Community on Corporate Chains’ Future
The community remains split, much like fans debating the merits of a remake versus the original classic. Some argue corporations don’t truly need blockchains and are just jumping on the bandwagon to avoid being left behind, as one X user noted in a popular post. Others, like infrastructure experts, believe these chains could succeed internally for efficiency, even if they don’t capture public upside—drawing parallels to successful private networks that handle massive volumes without broad user participation.
Speculation abounds, with talks of corporations potentially acquiring established blockchains or partnering with native firms to scale up. Recent updates, including an official announcement from a major tech firm on October 10, 2025, revealed plans to transition a corporate chain to community governance, sparking optimism. Twitter buzz, including posts from influencers like @BlockchainGuru, echoes frequently asked questions about integration, with data showing a 15% uptick in blockchain adoption queries in the last quarter. These examples underscore how contrasts between controlled and open systems highlight the strengths of decentralized projects, backed by real metrics like increased transaction volumes on public chains.
Ultimately, the conversation boils down to evolution: corporate blockchains that adapt by shedding central control might thrive, much like a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly. But those clinging to old ways could indeed face abandonment, as Ben-Sasson predicts, leaving room for pure crypto innovations to lead the way.
FAQ
What makes corporate blockchains different from public ones?
Corporate blockchains are often controlled by a single entity for efficiency, while public ones like Bitcoin emphasize decentralization, giving users more control and security. This difference can affect adoption, as public chains typically offer better self-custody and DeFi opportunities.
Will corporate blockchains help mainstream crypto adoption?
Yes, in the short term, they can introduce blockchain to wider audiences through familiar brands. However, long-term success depends on embracing decentralization, as evidenced by 2025 growth data showing decentralized networks outpacing centralized ones by 25%.
How can corporations align their blockchains with crypto’s ethos?
By reducing central control, incorporating community governance, and focusing on user empowerment—like enabling true self-custody—they can build trust. Recent examples include firms transitioning to hybrid models, which have boosted user engagement by up to 40% in industry reports.
You may also like

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…

Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.

Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?

AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway

What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.