The recent major positive news has undoubtedly generated significant excitement across the blockchain community. Many are celebrating the anticipated entry of formal institutions into the space. However, it is crucial to approach this development with a balanced perspective. The blockchain industry, characterized by diverse technical pathways and unique economic ecosystems, requires careful analysis to understand who will truly benefit and how.
This article breaks down the likely structural—rather than blanket—impact of this news, exploring three key trends that may define the future of blockchain.
Macro Direction: Increasing National Influence
Why has blockchain technology suddenly attracted high-level attention from governments worldwide? While the exact reasons are complex, recent global movements provide some clues.
The resurgence of interest in blockchain during 2019 was largely triggered by Facebook’s proposal for the Libra currency (now known as Diem). This initiative prompted responses not only from major corporations but also from central banks, including the People’s Bank of China, which began exploring its own digital currency.
Notably, during U.S. congressional hearings, Facebook representatives framed Libra in the context of competing with China’s financial system. In the current climate of Sino-American technological competition, such statements have added a geopolitical dimension to the project, effectively casting it as a U.S.-aligned digital currency initiative.
This shift underscores a broader trend: national governments and corporate giants are becoming inseparable from the future of blockchain. Large entities cannot ignore state influence, and in many cases, governments may take direct roles in blockchain development.
We are likely to see more nationally aligned blockchain projects—such as a British “national chain” (e.g., ENG), a French one (FRA), or a German one (GER)—with nodes controlled largely by state-regulated entities or government-approved enterprises.
As national projects gain prominence, transnational or decentralized communities may find themselves sidelined. While projects like Bitcoin can sustain themselves through native asset appreciation and community support, most cross-border blockchain initiatives—including Litecoin, Ethereum, and Bitshares—face serious operational challenges without state or corporate backing.
Thus, the blockchain landscape is increasingly likely to reflect national interests and boundaries.
Technical Pathways: The Rise of Consortium Blockchains
Not all blockchains are created equal. The industry is broadly divided into two models: public blockchains (with native cryptocurrencies) and consortium blockchains (permissioned and often without tokens).
Public blockchains have historically enjoyed greater popularity due to their strong anti-censorship properties. The distributed and decentralized nature of these networks makes tampering extremely difficult—a key advantage in the eyes of many proponents.
However, from a governmental perspective, a ledger that is practically immutable—or that requires global consensus to alter—is not ideal. States require the ability to modify, correct, or delete data when necessary for legal or regulatory reasons.
This is where consortium blockchains shine. These networks often include privileged nodes controlled by authorized entities, making it feasible for regulators or governments to intervene when needed—without compromising the entire system’s integrity.
If large-scale blockchain infrastructure projects are launched—similar to how nations have rolled out 5G networks—they will likely be built on consortium chains. Major tech firms like Alibaba and Tencent, which have already made significant investments in blockchain, are well-positioned to lead this development.
Meanwhile, public chains and the startups behind them may struggle to secure a foothold. Their technical and economic models do not align easily with state requirements, and without integration into broader digital economies, their growth may remain limited.
👉 Explore advanced blockchain strategies
Industry Players: A Coming Fork in the Road
As the industry evolves under new regulatory and macroeconomic conditions, a clear divide is emerging among market participants.
On one side are compliant, domestically oriented blockchain firms. These may include research institutions, tech giants, and central bank digital currency (CBDC) developers. These organizations are likely to benefit from new policy support and market attention.
On the other side are many legacy “crypto-native” projects and service providers—especially those associated with altcoins and token offerings. A significant number of these projects have tenuous connections to actual blockchain technology. Their tokens often function more like unregistered securities than currency, and they lack real economic utility or adoption.
Recent industry trends—such as layoffs at major exchanges and public blockchain companies—highlight the vulnerability of this segment. As information asymmetry decreases and regulatory clarity increases, many of these players may face obsolescence.
This divergence mirrors earlier technological shake-ups, such as in the fintech and peer-to-peer lending industries. Some actors successfully integrated into the formal financial system, while others were left behind.
The blockchain industry is now undergoing a similar transition. Adaptation and alignment with new norms will be critical for survival and growth.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between public and consortium blockchains?
Public blockchains are open and decentralized, allowing anyone to participate without permission. They usually have a native cryptocurrency. Consortium blockchains are permissioned and often governed by a group of organizations. They are typically faster and more scalable, but less decentralized.
Why are governments suddenly interested in blockchain?
Growing interest in digital currencies and financial technologies—exemplified by projects like Facebook’s Diem—has prompted states to explore sovereign alternatives. Blockchain is also seen as a tool for improving transparency and efficiency in public and private sectors.
Will Bitcoin and Ethereum be affected by these trends?
Bitcoin’s decentralized and resilient nature may help it maintain relevance regardless of state-led initiatives. Ethereum’s future may depend on its ability to adapt to regulatory demands and compete with newer, more compliant platforms.
What opportunities exist for blockchain startups under new regulations?
Startups that focus on compliant applications—such as supply chain tracking, digital identity, or regulated financial services—are better positioned than those focused solely on cryptocurrency speculation or decentralized applications with unclear legal status.
How can individuals participate in the blockchain industry now?
Learning about blockchain technology, developing relevant skills, and following regulatory developments are key. Engaging with established enterprises and accredited institutions may offer more stable opportunities than speculative investing.
Are decentralized communities completely unsustainable?
Not entirely. Projects with strong community support, clear utility, and sustainable economic models—like Bitcoin—can still thrive. However, many smaller projects may struggle without institutional backing or clear regulatory acceptance.