Citigroup says 2025 might be blockchain’s breakout year, its “ChatGPT moment,” fueled by clearer regulations. Are we up to speed on this type of thing? Are you ready to give up control of your money and identity to an algorithm? For most, it remains a dream that seems like something from a sci-fi story.

Is Blockchain Really For Ordinary People?

Think about ChatGPT. It took off because it was (relatively) easy to create stuff. You entered a question, and it instantly returned an answer. Simple. But blockchain, well, that still sounds like you need a PhD in cryptography to grasp it. We want grandmother-friendly interfaces, not just tech bro interfaces.

The potential for social media without censorship, voting that’s more secure and private, and giving that’s more transparent and accountable is incredible. Imagine a world where your data isn't controlled by Facebook, where elections are undeniably fair, where you know your donation is actually reaching the people it's supposed to help! That sense of wonder is what we really have to be concerned about. That sense of wonder can quickly give way to worry. You may be intimidated by the high learning curve, potential for fraud, and the ever present danger of hackers.

Accessibility isn't just about user interface. It's about education. It's about making sure marginalized communities, who could benefit the most from blockchain's financial inclusion potential, aren't left behind because they lack the resources and knowledge to participate. We must address the digital divide ahead of this “ChatGPT moment”—not in its midst.

Stablecoins: A Trojan Horse?

According to Citigroup, stablecoin market caps may climb as high as the trillions. That’s a huge pot of money moving through pretty decentralized systems. The prospect of dollar-denominated, stable assets being relatively easy to access across borders is attractive—particularly in countries with highly unstable or volatile currencies. Unfortunately, this convenience makes it easy to ignore some pretty big questions.

We note too, that US Treasury holdings by stablecoin issuers may soon surpass those of some US jurisdictions individually. Private actors controlling these stablecoins would have immense sway over a large share of the US debt market. Their decisions wield significant influence across the financial landscape. Are we ready to cede that degree of power and control? What if a large stablecoin depegs, like USDC did this spring after the fallout from the Silicon Valley Bank collapse? Indeed, as Citigroup themselves admit, the contagion effects, potential liquidity crunches, and trading platform impairments that could follow by…

This isn't some theoretical doomsday scenario. 1,900 depegging instances happened last year. The issue that Tether (USDT) and USDC (USDC) control 90% of the current market only compounds this concern further. We are pretty much just betting everything on two baskets, and hoping those two baskets are very stable to resist any future shock.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that we need strong regulatory frameworks globally to make sure stablecoins are truly stable. Protecting consumers should be our guiding principle in this endeavor. This isn’t about regulating innovation into the ground, it’s about saving taxpayers from a boondoggle in the making. Consider it like seatbelts in cars – we want people to have fun, but keep them safe.

Whose Values Baked Into The Code?

Blockchain isn't inherently neutral. The code is indeed neutral, but the code is written by people and those people have biases—conscious or not. This is particularly problematic in the realm of smart contracts that automatically execute agreements and processes. If the underlying code is biased, so too will be the outcome—in some cases intensifying and perpetuating existing inequalities.

Consider this: who gets to decide what constitutes a "fair" loan in a decentralized lending platform? Who guards the guarders to make sure their algorithms aren’t discriminating against certain demographics? These aren’t purely technical questions, they’re ethical questions that require serious deliberation.

Additionally, the environmental footprint from some blockchain technologies—especially those that employ proof-of-work consensus mechanisms—has become a major issue. Bitcoin's energy consumption is notorious, and while there are more energy-efficient alternatives, the environmental cost of widespread blockchain adoption can't be ignored.

A truly progressive vision of blockchain isn't just about technological innovation. It's about ensuring that this technology is used to create a more just and equitable world. It’s not just about increasing access to finance. It’s about putting financial inclusion first, increasing transparency, and reducing risks. Together, we’re cultivating a more equitable and inclusive future where everyone receives the seat they deserve at the table. It doesn’t have to be something only the technically savvy and well-heeled can do.

So, is blockchain's "ChatGPT moment" here? Maybe. But the real question is: are we ready to shape that moment into something truly beneficial for everyone? Or will we fall victim to the mistakes of the past? Otherwise, we are in danger of building a new system that just recreates old power dynamics and leaves the most vulnerable behind. The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind.