Early internet protocols were technical specifications created by working groups or non-profit organizations that relied on the alignment of interests in the internet community to gain adoption. This method worked well during the very early stages of the internet but since the early 1990s very few new protocols have gained widespread adoption. Cryptonetworks fix these problems by providing economics incentives to developers, maintainers, and other network participants in the form of tokens. They are also much more technically robust. For example, they are able to keep state and do arbitrary transformations on that state, something past protocols could never do.
But we quickly learned that some of our customers — consortia, foundations, and token backed projects — have other issues. Besides wasting their time and resources reading SDKs and learning how to run node deployments, some have real challenges with asset liquidity and cash flow, despite having bulging crypto wallets. Others, equity backed, have no idea about how to price out the network components of their services offerings — specifically, when it comes to mapping out network infrastructure costs at scale from big cloud providers like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. Don’t get me wrong, I am grateful for the scalability these companies have offered to software companies, but their profit model is based on extracting scale-value from R&D centric projects, making them one of the largest beneficiaries of the blockchain craze. Specifically if you are not all-in (taking advantages of their linkages and full-stack = expensive). More than that, they’re also data centralization companies. In other words, they applying a centralized value squeeze onto a decentralized network. Filecoin touched on some of that.