Over
a
decade
ago,
I
got
into
the
blockchain
business
because
I
wanted
to
fix
the
Internet
of
Things.
A
decade
later,
both
businesses
are
thriving
and
both
still
have
big
problems
with
their
business
models.
It
may
well
be
that,
like
the
original
internet,
we
can
never
really
escape
bad
business
models
once
they
take
root.
I
am,
for
one,
skeptical
that
we’ll
ever
be
free
from
the
our-service-is-free-because-you-are-the-product
model
of
social
media,
for
example.
Still,
I
have
some
hope
that,
as
the
Internet
of
Things
(IoT)
is
still
relatively
nascent,
we
might
be
able
to
use
blockchain
–
specifically
in
this
case
blockchain-enabled
Decentralized
Physical
Infrastructure
(DePIn)
to
fix
it.
At
heart,
the
problem
with
the
Internet
of
Things
is
the
business
model:
companies
need
a
constant
stream
of
revenue
to
maintain
their
products.
Consumers,
very
understandably,
don’t
think
it’s
reasonable
to
pay
a
subscription
to
maintain,
say,
the
software
on
their
door
knobs
or
fridge.
The
result
is
a
great
deal
that
usually
comes
with
a
nasty
hangover:
products
that
are
free
from
subscription
fees
that
one
day
get
discontinued
because
the
company
selling
them
wants
to
stop
maintaining
the
product.
Blockchain
offers
an
alternative,
combining
open-source
technology
with
decentralized
systems,
allowing
us
to
build
Internet
of
Things
networks
that
manage
themselves
and
can
operate
more
sustainably.
At
the
heart
of
the
problem
is
the
mismatch
between
the
life
of
products
and
the
life
of
the
product-line
being
sold
by
the
business.
We
might
ditch
our
smartphones
and
PCs
every
three
to
five
years,
but
generally
speaking,
lightbulbs,
doorknobs,
refrigerators
and
other
home
devices
are
expected
to
stay
in
place
for
longer.
If
you
need
cloud
infrastructure
to
manage
these
devices,
you
have
a
recurring
cost
that
goes
on
for
a
decade
or
two
after
you
may
have
sold
the
product.
Combine
that
with
software
maintenance
costs
and
it’s
easy
to
see
how
you
can
consume
all
your
margin
over
time.
The
result
is
that,
with
depressing
regularity,
companies
decide
to
“switch
off”
online
services
for
products
they
used
to
sell.
The
result
often
turns
a
device
you
integrated
into
your
life
into
a
brick.
Alternatively,
the
vendor
offering
the
service
that
was
“included”
in
the
purchase
prices
starts
charging.
A
few
years
ago,
I
was
suddenly
hit
with
a
$90
annual
fee
to
keep
my
smart
door
locks
running.
I
suppose
that’s
better
than
obsoleting
them,
but
I
was
so
incensed
I
went
out
and
bought
new
locks
and
installed
them
as
replacements.
It
probably
cost
me
about
eight
years
of
service
to
replace
the
locks,
but
my
decision
was
driven
by
spite,
not
rational
analysis.
Despite
some
very
frustrating
experiences,
the
IoT
industry
has
made
some
very
good
progress
in
the
last
few
years.
Devices
that
integrate
with
the
HomeKit
standard
and
those
using
the
new
Matter
controls
and
Thread
radios
are
built
from
the
ground
up
to
run
without
internet
connections.
This
means
their
basic
functions
do
not
require
cloud
infrastructure
and
the
burden
of
maintenance
doesn’t
fall
on
a
single
enterprise.
However,
if
we
want
truly
smart
homes
and
connected
experiences,
we
will
need
internet
connectivity
and
cloud
computing
infrastructure.
And,
for
that,
we
need
decentralized
cloud
infrastructure
as
well.
Using
blockchains,
devices
with
spare
computing
capacity
and
network
connectivity
can
run
more
complex
network
level
applications.
Want
to
manage
your
home
power
consumption
based
on
the
state
of
the
grid?
Sell
power
at
the
best
times
or
use
generative
AI
systems
for
a
conversational
interface?
All
those
things
consume
a
lot
of
computing
power
and
bandwidth
and,
if
we
want
a
sustainable
business
and
price
model,
then
we
must
be
able
to
do
that
without
needing
lots
of
new
data
centers.
The
good
news
is
that
the
smart
home
devices
have
become
absurdly
smart.
This
isn’t
because
we
really
need
the
intelligence
of
a
smartphone
in
our
lightbulbs.
It’s
because
it
turns
out
that
it’s
cheaper
to
put
an
entire
smartphone-level
brain
in
a
lightbulb
than
it
is
to
make
a
highly
customized
lightbulb
specific
smart-chip.
Chipmaking
is
a
volume
business
and
building
a
standard
overly-smart
chip
and
using
software
to
make
it
do
things
like
handle
a
light
or
manage
a
refrigerator
is
cheaper
and
more
scalable
than
customizing
each
device.
The
upshot
is
a
lot
of
idle
connected
computing
power
that
can
be
put
to
work
in
building
a
blockchain-linked
decentralized
cloud
computing
infrastructure.
Your
smart
home
and
car
can
“pay
its
own
way”
when
it
comes
to
compute
power,
selling
excess
capacity
when
you’re
not
using
it
and
using
more
from
others
when
needed.
The
result
should
be
a
sustainable
network
infrastructure
that
doesn’t
need
constant
injections
of
capital
from
the
original
product
sellers
to
keep
working.
If
the
cloud
is,
as
the
T-shirt
says,
just
someone
else’s
computer
–
maybe
it
could
be
your
neighbor’s
refrigerator?
There
are
many
ways
of
building
decentralized
computing
infrastructure.
But
there’s
a
reason
that,
when
I
started
down
this
path
more
than
a
decade
ago,
I
chose
blockchain
and
not
some
other
technology:
payments
and
contracts.
It’s
very
simple:
if
we
want
a
system
where
smart
devices
transact
with
each
other
to
provide
computing
services,
we
need
accounts,
ledgers
and
agreements.
Blockchains
come
with
those
baked
in.
For
more
than
a
decade,
I’ve
been
hoping
to
see
cloud
computing,
blockchain
and
the
Internet
of
Things
get
together.
We
might,
at
long
last,
be
approaching
that
time.
Note:
The
views
expressed
in
this
column
are
those
of
the
author
and
do
not
necessarily
reflect
those
of
CoinDesk,
Inc.
or
its
owners
and
affiliates.
