Scepticism about blockchain is turning into one of my favourite subjects. I’ve written about it here and here and here.
I was pleased to discover that my views are backed up by a recent study, which found “no documentation or evidence of the results blockchain was purported to have achieved” despite the glowing claims and forceful optimism of its proponents. (There’s also a good summary at The Register.)
Tellingly, when the study authors reached out to these enthusiasts, “not one was willing to share data on program results”. It turns out, therefore, that these companies don’t exactly practice what they preach when it comes to radical transparency.
It feels lovely to be able to say “I told you so”. However, there’s a serious side to all of this. I’ve recently read Bad Blood by John Carreyrou, which summarises his phenomenal investigation into the Theranos scandal. It’s fascinating and shocking and I highly recommend it.
In short, some of Silicon Valley’s most prominent investors were taken in by Elizabeth Holmes, a glamorous, charismatic leader who claimed to have developed a groundbreaking blood-testing device. This device, however, never existed in a functional format. It’s no longer going well for Holmes, although her story is probably going to make a great film.
The unravelling of Kids Company is similar in many ways: like Theranos it involved a charismatic founder with access to the highest echelons of political influence, but a painful lack of real impact evidence.
In both cases, the damage goes far beyond the wallets of funders or investors. Patients used inaccurate blood test results from Theranos machines to make decisions about their health, and vulnerable children under the care of Kids Company may have been put at risk.
It would be awful if anything like this happened again in our sector, but I believe there’s a risk if we take new technological claims at face value. I hope all of us can maintain a healthy scepticism towards anyone who claims that any new technology can solve social justice issues. Perhaps it can, but if these claims are grounded in reality, their proponents won’t mind answering difficult questions.
Moreover, I don’t buy the claim that only those with technical expertise can really understand. Any of us with a modicum of intelligence can get a handle on these proposals and identify the gaps.
After all, it’s much better to cause momentary awkwardness through asking a tricky question than hurt the people we are all trying to help.
One thought on “I love being right about blockchain, but also have a serious point to make”