I’m happy to read this kind of article from a16z crypto — one that understands the real value of blockchain for capital markets, rather than the hype-driven narrative or the hypocritical version of capitalism often surrounding the industry.
The true potential of blockchain is not speculation. It is the redesign of financial market infrastructure: improving transparency, reducing friction and social costs, enabling more efficient capital formation, and creating structurally better settlement and custodial systems.
That s the why we had the idea to build Allfeat, a blockchain layer1 hostung the music registry in order to accelerate all automate payment like royalties, advance payment, ticketing, fan base....
The reframe from “decentralization” to “coordination infrastructure” is exactly right — and long overdue. What’s fascinating from a behavioral standpoint is that Wall Street’s resistance wasn’t purely technical; it was psychological. Institutions protect their position as the trusted third party. Blockchains don’t just solve a coordination problem — they redistribute the cognitive authority of who gets to be the record of truth. That shift is as much a human behavior story as it is a tech story.
The line that lands hardest here is "the asset is the record" // no separate ledger to reconcile against. I keep arriving at the same place from a completely different direction.
I build context systems for AI development, and the entire discipline collapses to one problem: source of truth. Who holds the canonical state, what wins when copies drift, what happens when more than one writer touches the same record. The blockchain answer is a neutral substrate so no single party owns the state. But where you can't have that // multiple writers, one canonical store, no consensus mechanism // the fallback isn't chaos, it's a strict hierarchy plus a write protocol: canonical updates first, everything else re-syncs from it, one writer per record per session. Reconciliation is the tax you pay for ambiguous ownership, whether the records are trades or context files.
So the coordination problem you're describing isn't really about finance or crypto. It's the same problem anywhere multiple parties have to agree on shared state under imperfect trust. Different domains, same Schelling point.
> Crypto, as a culture, was organized around ideas like decentralization and financial sovereignty.
> They provide a neutral system where multiple parties can coordinate without handing control to a single owner.
I agree with that but we should stress that this is a major pivot and essentially a completely different story (original story is centered around end users, the current one is around institutions).
I had a following thought in my mind for a long time: Current crypto was often about decentralizing something existing. Decentralized money, decentralized banks, decentralized AWS, decentralized Facebook - the story was always the same - take something existing and create something which provides "the same", just in decentralized form. This worked for money (Bitcoin), somewhat worked for Banks (but only partially since crypto resorted to be infra underneath banks as you indicate in your article and not full "bankless" story) and has not worked (beyond hype) at all for anything else - especially app / user related.
But what if we twist the story ? What if we use consensus based state (blockchain) to create something new which has not existed before - which does not have traditional alternative and can only be created using this? And I realized we can build something new and great instead of "decentralized but worse" alternatives of existing. I have summarized the idea in a (long) paper here, and created a small POC which I am happy to present and/or discuss but in short - with blockchain we can build global,neutral, metering based, clearing layer for services consumed via Internet - and this completely changes the dynamics of the whole Internet.
In short - ISPs/Telcos can be the next institutional class (after Banks as you indicate in the article) where coordination "underneath" can bring something truly impactful.
A good read. "Wall street might inherit some of crypto spirit" - that will be nice 💯
I’m happy to read this kind of article from a16z crypto — one that understands the real value of blockchain for capital markets, rather than the hype-driven narrative or the hypocritical version of capitalism often surrounding the industry.
The true potential of blockchain is not speculation. It is the redesign of financial market infrastructure: improving transparency, reducing friction and social costs, enabling more efficient capital formation, and creating structurally better settlement and custodial systems.
Can you assist me or find out what is the reason why I can't extract my wallet to imtoken
Let’s grow together by supporting one another if you’re also new on Substack, feel free to subscribe and I’ll gladly do the same.
That s the why we had the idea to build Allfeat, a blockchain layer1 hostung the music registry in order to accelerate all automate payment like royalties, advance payment, ticketing, fan base....
A native infra for a 45$Bn market
Hi
The reframe from “decentralization” to “coordination infrastructure” is exactly right — and long overdue. What’s fascinating from a behavioral standpoint is that Wall Street’s resistance wasn’t purely technical; it was psychological. Institutions protect their position as the trusted third party. Blockchains don’t just solve a coordination problem — they redistribute the cognitive authority of who gets to be the record of truth. That shift is as much a human behavior story as it is a tech story.
— CJ Carswell | Blockchain Psychology
https://dhglobal.substack.com/p/key-terms-of-the-simplicity-revolution?r=ahvtc&utm_medium=ios
The line that lands hardest here is "the asset is the record" // no separate ledger to reconcile against. I keep arriving at the same place from a completely different direction.
I build context systems for AI development, and the entire discipline collapses to one problem: source of truth. Who holds the canonical state, what wins when copies drift, what happens when more than one writer touches the same record. The blockchain answer is a neutral substrate so no single party owns the state. But where you can't have that // multiple writers, one canonical store, no consensus mechanism // the fallback isn't chaos, it's a strict hierarchy plus a write protocol: canonical updates first, everything else re-syncs from it, one writer per record per session. Reconciliation is the tax you pay for ambiguous ownership, whether the records are trades or context files.
So the coordination problem you're describing isn't really about finance or crypto. It's the same problem anywhere multiple parties have to agree on shared state under imperfect trust. Different domains, same Schelling point.
> Crypto, as a culture, was organized around ideas like decentralization and financial sovereignty.
> They provide a neutral system where multiple parties can coordinate without handing control to a single owner.
I agree with that but we should stress that this is a major pivot and essentially a completely different story (original story is centered around end users, the current one is around institutions).
I had a following thought in my mind for a long time: Current crypto was often about decentralizing something existing. Decentralized money, decentralized banks, decentralized AWS, decentralized Facebook - the story was always the same - take something existing and create something which provides "the same", just in decentralized form. This worked for money (Bitcoin), somewhat worked for Banks (but only partially since crypto resorted to be infra underneath banks as you indicate in your article and not full "bankless" story) and has not worked (beyond hype) at all for anything else - especially app / user related.
But what if we twist the story ? What if we use consensus based state (blockchain) to create something new which has not existed before - which does not have traditional alternative and can only be created using this? And I realized we can build something new and great instead of "decentralized but worse" alternatives of existing. I have summarized the idea in a (long) paper here, and created a small POC which I am happy to present and/or discuss but in short - with blockchain we can build global,neutral, metering based, clearing layer for services consumed via Internet - and this completely changes the dynamics of the whole Internet.
In short - ISPs/Telcos can be the next institutional class (after Banks as you indicate in the article) where coordination "underneath" can bring something truly impactful.
Paper here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mpY8mUMpGOlF7tbAQprs0gWzKnHOuyuv/view
Thanks for the interesting article and should there by any interest in demo, discussion or anything, DM me anytime (X handle @pe_remek)