Blockchains have long been promoted as decentralized systems, promised to hand control back to individuals and disrupt the entrenched power of financial and corporate behemoths. However, with corporations now showing a growing interest in blockchain technology—sometimes launching their own “corpo” chains—questions have arisen regarding the sustainability, motivation, and long-term value of such efforts. StarkWare CEO and co-founder Eli Ben-Sasson has weighed in on this debate, predicting that corporate-controlled blockchains will ultimately fade away, as users increasingly demand transparency and self-sovereignty over their digital assets.
The Problem with Corporate Blockchains
Eli Ben-Sasson, a prominent figure in blockchain innovation, recently made headlines with his pointed observations about the fate of blockchains created and maintained by major corporations. He asserted that blockchains controlled by centralized entities are fundamentally misaligned with the technology’s original principles.
According to Ben-Sasson, the transformative power of blockchain lies in its ability to eliminate a central authority. “The important element of blockchain is a system that gets rid of a central entity,” he explained, highlighting that decentralization is both blockchain’s defining trait and its primary value to users. Yet this trait comes with significant technological challenges, making public and adequately decentralized blockchains more complex and harder to operate than systems with a central overseer.
Even as advances such as account abstraction—tools that simplify user experiences around key management and transactions—make access to blockchain easier, the underlying technical complexity persists. This complexity, according to Ben-Sasson, is compounded rather than solved by corporate intervention, making the trade-off unattractive for both corporations and end-users.
Bitcoin’s Legacy and Corporate Ambitions
Historically, Bitcoin was designed to upend mainstream finance by providing people with a digital asset system resistant to centralized control. This anti-establishment ethos has fueled not just Bitcoin, but the broader movement toward decentralization in finance and technology. Within this context, attempts by corporations to create and manage their own blockchains are sometimes met with skepticism, and occasionally outright opposition, from crypto natives.
Recent examples include Stripe’s introduction of its own layer-1 blockchain, Tempo, which has received a lukewarm response from segments of the crypto community. Many see these developments as attempts to exploit the promise of blockchain without honoring its foundational principles.
Short-Term Adoption Versus Long-Term Value
Ben-Sasson’s remarks, while cautious, acknowledged some short-term benefits of corporate involvement. He conceded that as corporations jump on the blockchain bandwagon, this mainstream interest helps demystify the technology. “It’s great that corporations want to adopt blockchain… blockchains are no longer this scary thing,” he noted. Widespread corporate interest may, at least temporarily, promote adoption among previously hesitant users, and expand the reach of blockchain technology.
However, Ben-Sasson drew a critical distinction between adoption in the near term and the value proposition that will define success in the long haul. He predicted that many corporate blockchains would be abandoned “when they cause too big a headache from a technical point of view.” More importantly, he believes these blockchains will fail to capture user loyalty or engagement because, despite the complexity and cost, they offer nothing unique: users won’t have true control over their assets, as a central entity remains in charge.
“Fast forward a few years: Corporate chains will end up with the complex tech but without the added value for users, which is no central entity to control them. At that point, these chains will lose the focus from corporates.”
This forecast rests on the premise that the complex and resource-intensive nature of running a blockchain system is worthwhile only so long as it realizes the promise of decentralization. Without that reward, corporations may see their investments stagnate or wither altogether.
Community Reaction: Diverging Views on Corporate Chains
The debate about the utility and trajectory of corporate blockchains is far from settled, with industry participants and observers offering contrasting views.
One perspective, articulated by the X user Boluson, holds that most corporations are not inherently in need of blockchain at all. Instead, these firms feel pressured by broader market dynamics, fearing obsolescence or being left out as the digital transformation accelerates. “Not every project in crypto needs to have blockchain, now everyone wants to build something around creating a blockchain,” Boluson remarked, voicing a sentiment that echoes across parts of the crypto community.
Others suggest that much of the corporate blockchain activity is motivated by fear of missing out rather than a well-considered business case. Traditional firms might be launching chains for the optics, to signal innovation, or to reassure stakeholders, but not because it necessarily serves their mission.
Still, not every industry leader is as pessimistic about the fate of corporate blockchains. Rob Masiello, CEO of Sova Labs, offered a more nuanced take. He argued that “corp chains” would indeed prove successful—for the corporations that create and operate them. According to Masiello, these blockchains can streamline certain business processes and improve efficiency, even if they fail to deliver on the vision of broad user participation and financial inclusion.
“Users just won’t have any way to participate in their upside. Base is an example,” he explained, alluding to use cases where corporate blockchains deliver value internally without fostering an open, participatory community.
Additional community voices speculated on hybrid strategies: corporations might launch an initial chain, then transfer control to more native blockchain firms, or look to acquire existing decentralized systems and scale them towards corporate goals. This approach could potentially bridge the divide between pure decentralization and corporatized blockchain innovation, though it carries risks of its own—most notably, the dilution of community governance and trust.
The Future of Decentralization: User Choice and Corporate Retreat
The heart of the current debate is the question of user sovereignty—whether everyday users wish to entrust their assets and data to a chain whose governance ultimately lies with a corporate boardroom, rather than with open and transparent community mechanisms. The underlying promise of decentralization is precisely the empowerment of users, removing intermediaries and gatekeepers from digital infrastructure.
According to Ben-Sasson and many crypto thought leaders, corporate chains fail this test. End-users who are drawn to blockchain for the promise of self-custody and control over their assets will ultimately vote with their feet, abandoning solutions they view as little more than traditional platforms in new technological dress. The complexity and maintenance costs of robust blockchains are only justified when they offer authentic decentralization; otherwise, corporations are likely to lose interest over time.
This paradigm resonates particularly with the original vision laid out in Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin whitepaper—resistant to censorship, beyond the reach of singular institution control, and open to all. With each new “corpo” chain announcement, debates around blockchain’s future, utility, and role in society are reignited, inviting users, developers, and corporations to reflect on what makes blockchain worth building—and worth trusting.
Conclusion: Blockchain’s True Value Lies in Decentralization
As corporations experiment with deploying their own blockchains, the sector is at an inflection point. On one hand, corporate adoption introduces blockchain technology to a broader audience, offers new resources for development, and catalyzes institutional innovation. On the other hand, such efforts risk draining blockchain of its most revolutionary attribute: the dissolution of central control.
The fate of corporate blockchains is likely to be determined not just by technical or economic considerations, but by the preferences and philosophies of the user base. As Eli Ben-Sasson suggests, without meaningful decentralization, corporate chains may struggle to maintain relevance both to users and to their corporate sponsors. High costs, complex technologies, and disappointing user engagement could eventually force corporations to retreat, reaffirming the enduring importance of open, decentralized alternatives.
In this evolving landscape, the lesson remains clear: blockchain’s value is in its community, its transparency, and its ability to upend old power structures, rather than reinforce them. As users become more sophisticated in their understanding of what makes a blockchain special, their choices will continue to shape the future of digital innovation—whether on corporate chains or truly decentralized networks.
