Blockchain was once among the most discussed technologies in the digital world. Many believed it would revolutionize everything—from finance, banking, and elections to government operations—even becoming a campaign highlight. However, over the years, Blockchain has faced ongoing skepticism about whether it can truly change the world as once hoped.
. . . “Nai Arm,” the owner of the 9arm channel, who frequently produces videos explaining hot topics in technology to Thai audiences in simple terms, revealing the workings behind these technologies, has made a video titled “Reviewing Blockchain from 2026”
examining how the technology has transformed Thai society and the world after the waves of Crypto and Metaverse.
He also explores Blockchain’s actual position in 2026, raising many interesting points. The video offers a “Reality Check” perspective on which use cases have truly proven themselves and which may have been overhyped amid technological excitement.
Nai Arm cites an example from about 10 years ago, the book“Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World” by Alex Tapscott and Don Tapscott,which created a significant impact in the tech industry and fostered belief that Blockchain would become the new global infrastructure for finance, government, and the digital economy.
However, by 2026, many use cases have not materialized widely. Nai Arm’s view is that many technologies are initially overhyped beyond their true capabilities, and Blockchain serves as a classic example of the Hype Cycle.
At the time, it was believed Blockchain would enable decentralized systems without intermediaries such as governments, central platforms, or banks—known in finance as Decentralized Finance (DeFi). In reality, decentralization is minimal despite claims of “no one controls it.”
Nai Arm explains that DeFi exists and functions but represents only a small segment of global finance, such as lending, exchanges, and yield farming. Most people still prefer banks for convenience and protection against errors, fraud, or hacking.
For instance, if mistakes or fraud occur, customers can contact banks or Visa for assistance. He sees “having intermediaries” not as a weakness but as a consumer-desired feature offering confidence and security.
As a case study, Nai Arm notes many governments can still track, freeze wallets, or compel exchanges to reveal customer data, despite claims of “decentralization.” Blockchain does not eliminate state control but alters its form.
Following the previous point, Nai Arm believes that for technology to achieve mass adoption, it must be user-friendly for ordinary people, not just those with technical expertise. For example, seed phrases of 20-24 words are too complex for most, risking total asset loss if lost without help.
He cites research showing that 80-90% of NFT trading during the boom was wash trading—buying and selling to inflate prices. Moreover, NFT transactions do not confer copyright ownership.
Many mistakenly think buying an NFT grants copyright, but generally, it only represents a token of ownership without commercial rights. Legal enforcement against copying still depends on laws or government action. He views NFTs as digital collectibles rather than a revolution in copyright systems.
Nai Arm points out that at one time, banks and global organizations announced plans to migrate systems to Blockchain, but many projects were canceled due to high costs, slow development, and no clear advantage over cheaper traditional databases.
A key issue is that trustless systems lack a central authority to resolve user problems like hacked accounts or scams. Traditional databases can freeze accounts, reverse transactions, or assist fraud victims—services people still value.
Many companies later found that modern databases can perform Blockchain functions and sometimes better meet business requirements.
People often misunderstand Blockchain as the only technology capable of creating immutable records. However, this immutability can be problematic if incorrect data is initially recorded.
In reality, modern databases like PostgreSQL can implement audit logs and cryptographic verification without the complexity of decentralized systems. The main difference is that databases offer more flexibility, especially to correct human errors, whereas incorrect Blockchain data may become permanently locked.
Another major failure example is Blockchain use in supply chains for tracking products or raw materials, such as Walmart or global shipping giant Maersk aiming to monitor warehouse locations, container contents, or shipping vessels, but projects were halted.
Nai Arm explains these systems require cooperation across all supply chain players—from producers, factories, transport companies to retailers. In reality, many firms resist bearing costs to run nodes or share data with competitors.
Ultimately, many organizations found that ordinary databases or websites linked by QR codes are easier, cheaper, and similarly effective. Without full participation, Blockchain systems fail to generate network effects, and more complex technology does not always mean better.
Another much-discussed use case is elections, believed to improve transparency, verifiability, and reduce fraud.
Nai Arm states that election problems do not hinge on decentralization. Despite Blockchain's immutability, votes can be manipulated before being recorded or even afterward.
As long as governments design and own election systems, significant transparency gaps remain. Many attempt to solve social or political issues with Blockchain, while these are fundamentally governance problems rather than technical ones.
Blockchain has not entirely failed. Some use cases have proven effective, especially Stablecoins like USDC, which facilitate faster cross-border payments compared to traditional banks that take days and charge high fees.
However, Nai Arm notes that Stablecoin success does not reflect the decentralized ideal once promoted. Most Stablecoins are controlled by private companies under government regulation, allowing authorities to monitor or freeze accounts.
Additionally, Bitcoin is increasingly accepted as a store of value rather than a new global financial system. Europe is experimenting with Blockchain for Digital ID verification, a use case better aligned with the technology's nature than attempting to replace every system.
Nai Arm concludes that Blockchain is not bad technology but is not the answer to “everything” as once claimed. It may take another 10-20 years to find truly suitable use cases, similar to AI, which has been researched since the 1970s but only recently found broad practical applications.
Follow the Facebook page: Thairath Money at this link -