[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?

[RhodesianHunter]

As I said in my previous comment, it is happening in a major way across industries. There just aren't any clear market leaders because as previously discussed, different brands have different ideas on who a trusted third party is.

[rglullis]

> different brands have different ideas on who a trusted third party is

If different entities do not all trust the same centralized party, then it is not happening. You are pulling a spherical cow again as an answer. What is so hard to understand about that?

[RhodesianHunter]

That is nonsense, why do all brands have to use the same solution for one brand to have something that works?

Why do you keep arguing about a space you're clearly unfamiliar with?

[rglullis]

Because it's not a matter of the industry that I am talking about, it is the general principle.

To make an analogy: I don't need to know all of the details of foreign trade and banking regulations around the world to know that people can use blockchain-backed cryptocurrency to send money all around the world in a way that is faster and cheaper that any banking or remittance company ever will be able to.

As blockchain tech matures and gets easier to be adopted by the masses, it will not matter if currently we have a gazillion different banks and if companies each are using their own ad-hoc method for managing world-wide transfers and FX: the moment that consumers are able to say "I want to use my crypto to pay for this", companies that are not on-board with that will simply lose business.

---

To sum up: you are arguing that the status quo is the only way to make things and that the only way to have any change is when they are of interest to the status quo. I am arguing that the status quo will not matter the moment that blockchain technology gets more accessible and makes more economical sense as a way to verify and coordinate work among entities that do not trust each other.

What matters in the end (to quote from the OP that started our discussion) is "The whole paper trail around a bill of lading isn't a joke if you are shipping from say China to South America". This is something that blockchain is basically designed to solve. It doesn't matter if the companies now don't want to use it, when the people holding the purses start asking for a solution that only blockchain can solve efficiently, the companies that don't adopt will lose business and fade away.