Public Blockchains and Stablecoins: Unpacking the Evolving Utility and Enduring Skepticism

The discussion surrounding public blockchains and stablecoins reveals a deeply divided perspective on their current utility and future potential. While some observers highlight a shift towards greater adoption by major corporations, governments, and financial institutions, others maintain that the technology's practical value beyond speculation and illicit activities remains largely unproven.

Arguments for Evolving Utility

Proponents point to several areas suggesting a maturing ecosystem:

Corporate and Financial Institution Interest: The increasing involvement of Wall Street, corporations, and even central banks is seen as a sign of growing legitimacy. This includes the potential for tokenization to create a more globalized, automated, and efficient foundation for financial asset operations, complete with stronger property rights. Influential figures in finance have publicly explored these possibilities.
Stablecoins for Cross-Border Settlement: Stablecoins are acknowledged by some, even moderate skeptics, as having solved a real problem in cross-border settlements, offering a more efficient alternative to traditional methods.
Infrastructure Layer Value: The view that public blockchains hold significant value at the 'infrastructure layer' suggests their utility is foundational, enabling new systems, even if consumer-facing applications are still noisy or speculative.
Emerging Use Cases: Specific, albeit nascent, applications are being developed, such as a 'renaissance' in micropayments (e.g., x402) for monetizing bot traffic and intellectual property access, and new standards for AI agent reputation (e.g., ERC-8004). Decentralized finance (DeFi) is also cited for its 24/7 accessibility to borrowing and asset swaps, claiming an advantage over traditional finance's operating hours.

Persistent Skepticism and Challenges

Despite these points, a significant portion of the community remains unconvinced, citing long-standing criticisms:

Facilitating Speculation, Not Adoption: Many view corporate 'adoption' as simply enabling speculation or gambling for a fee, rather than a genuine endorsement of the technology's inherent value. The primary use cases are perceived as unchanged: speculative trading and circumvention of law.
Limited Real-World Utility: The claim that blockchain's 'potential' has been discussed for over 15 years without widespread, useful implementations or products persists. Critics ask why, after so much time, practical, everyday applications haven't materialized for the general public, such as buying a car with cryptocurrency.
High Prevalence of Scams: The cryptocurrency space is widely seen as having a disproportionately high number of scams, making it an area many prefer to avoid due to security and trust concerns.
Inferior to Existing Systems: For many claimed use cases, such as sending money globally or swapping assets, critics argue that existing regulated financial services (e.g., Transferwise, Revolut, PayPal) are already more efficient, user-friendly, secure, and offer recourse in case of error or fraud, which is often lacking in blockchain transactions.
Usability and Security Concerns: The user experience with crypto is often described as cumbersome, involving long wallet addresses, additional fees, price volatility, and irreversible transactions that pose significant risks if funds are sent incorrectly or wallets are compromised. The environmental impact (carbon creation) is also a concern.

In essence, while there are specific areas where public blockchains and stablecoins show promise, particularly at the financial infrastructure level and for niche emerging applications, the broad sentiment reflects a continued demand for tangible, widespread, and secure advantages over established systems to fully shift perceptions.