Let me paint a picture. Imagine a small artist spends months on a digital piece, sells it online, and then watches it get copied and shared a million times without ever seeing another penny. Now, a web3 advocate swoops in and says, "We can fix that with an NFT! It proves ownership on the blockchain!" But here's my question: does putting a receipt on a public ledger actually stop the copying? No. The image is still just a JPEG anyone can right-click and save. The real problem was copyright enforcement and fair compensation, and blockchain didn't solve those. It just created a new, speculative asset class out of the receipt. That's the core of my argument. Web3 often feels like a hammer in search of a nail. My opponent will likely point to potential uses, but I see a pattern of inventing complex, decentralized solutions for problems we've already addressed more efficiently. Let me break down my case. The "Trustless" Solution for Trusted Systems. We're told blockchain eliminates the need for trusted intermediaries. But for most daily transactions—using a credit card, streaming music—we have systems that work. They're fast, cheap for the user, and have fraud protection. Replacing them with slower, energy-intensive, and technically complex decentralized networks isn't solving a user problem; it's creating engineering hurdles for the sake of ideology. Artificial Scarcity in a Digital World. A major selling point is proving digital ownership and creating scarcity. But outside of speculative collectibles, why do we need artificial scarcity for digital goods? The internet's power is in abundance and free flow of information. Imposing blockchain-based scarcity feels like inventing a problem to justify the tech, not the other way around. Real-World Data Relies on Trusted Inputs. For supply chains or records, the blockchain is only as good as the data entered. If a bad actor inputs "organic" for a non-organic product at the start, that lie is immutably recorded. The problem was never the ledger; it was verifying the real-world event. Blockchain adds a costly, transparent filing cabinet without solving the core verification issue. The pattern is clear: identify an existing system, claim it's broken because it's "centralized," and propose a blockchain fix that's often slower, more expensive, and less user-friendly. That's the definition of a solution in search of a problem. I'm eager to hear what specific, widespread problems my opponent believes only blockchain can solve.

My opponent's example of the musician actually proves my point. The problem she identified is real: artists need better ways to get paid. But the blockchain "solution" is a workaround for a legal and business model failure. The existing system could implement micro-payments and transparent royalty tracking tomorrow if there was enough pressure; we don't need a new global ledger for that. The blockchain part is the extra, unnecessary layer. Let me strengthen my position with three clear counters. First, the intermediary argument is flawed. My opponent says blockchain cuts out "exploitative intermediaries." But what replaces them? You have to pay transaction fees ("gas") to miners or validators. You have to manage private keys, where losing them means losing everything—no customer support. This isn't removing intermediaries; it's replacing regulated, accountable ones with unaccountable protocol fees and permanent personal risk. For most people, that's a worse problem. Second, let's talk about those "powerful use cases." Supply chain transparency? A company can already use a simple, centralized database shared with partners. The bottleneck isn't the database technology; it's getting all parties to input honest data. Blockchain doesn't magically create truth. It just makes the potentially false data permanent. You're adding cost and complexity for zero gain on the core trust issue. Finally, the user experience test. For a technology to solve a widespread problem, people need to be able to use it seamlessly. After over a decade, using blockchain apps still requires navigating wallets, seed phrases, and volatile fees. If the solution was genuinely solving a pressing need, users would flock despite the friction. They haven't, because for everyday problems—paying an artist, verifying a product—existing tools, while imperfect, are simpler. The continued focus on speculation over utility shows the technology is still primarily a financial instrument in search of a broader purpose. The fundamental issue remains: proponents start with the blockchain hammer and then look for nails, rather than starting with the nail of a user's pain point and choosing the simplest tool.

But if the core problem is verifying the tomato is organic at the farm gate, and blockchain doesn't solve that, haven't we just built a beautifully unbreakable chain for data that could be garbage from the start? My opponent is describing a better filing cabinet, not a solution to the actual trust issue. Let me address their points directly. First, on financial inclusion. They claim blockchain helps the unbanked. But you need a smartphone, internet, technical know-how to avoid scams, and you get paid in a volatile asset. Is that truly more accessible than building better local banking? It feels like we're imposing a complex tech fix instead of solving the real barriers, which are often poverty and infrastructure. Second, the programmable royalty for artists. That's a clever feature, but it's built on a massive assumption: that the market will adopt this new system. The real problem artists face isn't a lack of programmable contracts; it's the market dominance of a few platforms. Convincing those platforms to adopt this standard, or convincing users to migrate entirely, is the monumental hurdle. The blockchain solution works in a vacuum, but it ignores the entrenched reality of the existing internet. Finally, let's get to the heart of it. My opponent says the existing system is the cause of inequality and opacity. I agree those are problems. But is a complete, decentralized rebuild the only or best solution? Most people don't want to manage cryptographic keys to listen to music. They want a simple, reliable service. The better path is regulating platforms and improving existing laws, not asking billions to understand gas fees and seed phrases. The pattern holds. Identify a real, complex societal or business problem—like platform dominance or supply chain fraud—and propose a blockchain rebuild that is technically elegant but pragmatically daunting. That's the definition of a solution in search of a problem. It starts with the technology's capabilities and tries to backfit them onto the world, rather than starting with the user's simplest path to a resolution.

Let's take the supply chain example you keep returning to. You say an immutable ledger is "objectively better" for a tamper-proof audit trail. But that assumes every party in the chain is willing to put their true data on a transparent, permanent ledger their competitors can see. In reality, that's a massive business disincentive. The problem isn't the technology of the ledger; it's the lack of commercial incentive for total transparency. So we're back to square one: blockchain solves a technical issue of data immutability, but it doesn't solve the human problem of data honesty, which was the actual obstacle. My argument isn't that current systems are perfect. It's that blockchain consistently misdiagnoses the root cause. Let me clarify with two final points. First, on decentralization as a goal. You frame the concentration of corporate power as the core problem. But for the average user, the problem is inconvenience, cost, or lack of features—not the abstract structure of "centralization." People choose convenience over ideological purity every time. Building a "fairer internet" by architecture ignores that users don't pick platforms based on their backend. They pick what works. So far, blockchain adds friction for a philosophical benefit most users don't prioritize. Second, the comparison to early internet dial-up is flawed. Dial-up solved a clear, immediate user problem: access to information and communication. People endured the friction because the payoff was huge and obvious. With blockchain, the payoff for most proposed uses—like proving ownership of a digital file—is still nebulous to the average person. The friction remains high because the core utility is still contested. That's a sign of a technology in search of its essential use case, not one overcoming early adoption hurdles. You conclude it's the foundation for a fairer internet. But a foundation is only useful if you can build a practical house on it that people want to live in. After over a decade, the most compelling applications are still financial speculation and digital collectibles. That suggests the technology naturally suits creating and trading speculative assets, not rebuilding the mundane but vital systems of everyday life. It found its problem: facilitating speculative markets. The attempt to retrofit it onto everything else is what makes it a solution in search of a problem.