[rglullis]

If they don't, they will be put out of business. Do you think if Walmart says "I will only buy from you if I am able to audit you and prove that your shrinkage is less than X%" they are just going to say "Opposite, sorry we can't do that."?

Or if Amazon ever starts a blockchain-based certification system to crack down on counterfeit products, the legit distributors are not going to push down on all their suppliers? Of course they will.

[RhodesianHunter]

This thinking belies a very simplistic view of a very complex supply chain.

Brands like Nike often don't touch their products after they produce the design.

Manufacturing, distribution, shipping, warehousing, sales are all handled by a massive web of smaller entities with long term contracts. Most of these businesses use very very old tech, and will actively resist change.

Its a chicken or egg problem too, since having half of your products on a blockchain is pretty much worthless, it's an all-or-nothing problem which makes it that much more of a massive undertaking.

I've studied this pretty extensively and honestly don't think it'll ever happen. At least unless the current paradigm of supply changes massively.

[rglullis]

> I've studied this pretty extensively and honestly don't think it'll ever happen. At least unless the current paradigm of supply changes massively.

"I don't think we will see any changes in the industry, unless the industry changes." Kind of tautological, no?

> Most of these businesses use very very old tech, and will actively resist change.

I don't think we are disagreeing. Maybe we are just thinking in different timescales.

I don't doubt current business will resist change. What I am saying is that there will be a point where adopting the technology will be such an obvious advantage for the large players that the existing business will either be forced to adopt or be disrupted by some new business.

[RhodesianHunter]

> "I don't think we will see any changes in the industry, unless the industry changes." Kind of tautological, no?

Kind of not-at-all what I said no? Change is inevitable, blockchain is not the right tool for this job.

>adopting the technology will be such an obvious advantage for the large players

A centralized solution from a trusted third party has all of the benefits of blockchain with just about none of the downsides. Many institutions could fill this role from technology companies to major law firms in the supply chain space.

[rglullis]

> A centralized solution from a trusted third party has all of the benefits of blockchain with just about none of the downsides.

So why hasn't it happened yet?

Also, who in their right mind would rely so much on a "trusted third party" to coordinate global supply chains?

What would be cost to have an organization that is able to maintain this level of trust?

What about the politics of it? Even if the entity were to be trusted, how can we be sure that there would be no countries forcing their political/economical might to bend this entity to do what they want? As an example, after the global pandemic, do you trust WHO more or less? Do you still believe that they are completely independent?

You are never going to hear from me that blockchain is a perfect solution for all problems, but a "centralized solution with a trusted third-party" is quite a spherical cow in comparison.

[RhodesianHunter]

> Also, who in their right mind would rely so much on a "trusted third party" to coordinate global supply chains?

Just about every major brand.

You can think it's absurd all you want, but it's already a major industry.

[rglullis]

Back to the main question, then: why hasn't it happened yet?