Honestly, the only reason that I can think of is that they want to have a decentralized database with a provenance chain of where resources come from/go to, track it on the individual level.
Why wouldn't they be using a centralized DB for this? No clue. They can get the same functionality 99% of the time with their own internal centralized DB.
The only reason that I could recommend using a blockchain solution would be that you need to have each individual location that utilizes the database not be able to trust the connection to the central database, and therefore you need a distributed system that enforces trust, especially between locations, i.e. Bottler #1 doesn't necessarily trust Supplier #1 for the correct transfer of resources, and the crypto nature of the exchange confirmation would make it difficult to defraud the transaction. The problem is that this only works while all resources are tracked on the blockchain -- otherwise, you have digital information with no physical backing.
If you are Coca-Cola, you can build your own centralized system to track supplies yourself -- you are the central source of truth. If you have the weight to throw around, why wouldn't you just require your suppliers/bottlers to utilize a connection to your DB system instead of trying to shoehorn in blockchain? They might actually have a good reason, but I kinda feel like it's a waste.
There's no logic to it. Some vendor or higher up convinced management that this was important, probably emphasizing data integrity or something. I doubt it was some super well researched decision.
5 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 25.4 ms ] threadWhy wouldn't they be using a centralized DB for this? No clue. They can get the same functionality 99% of the time with their own internal centralized DB.
The only reason that I could recommend using a blockchain solution would be that you need to have each individual location that utilizes the database not be able to trust the connection to the central database, and therefore you need a distributed system that enforces trust, especially between locations, i.e. Bottler #1 doesn't necessarily trust Supplier #1 for the correct transfer of resources, and the crypto nature of the exchange confirmation would make it difficult to defraud the transaction. The problem is that this only works while all resources are tracked on the blockchain -- otherwise, you have digital information with no physical backing.
If you are Coca-Cola, you can build your own centralized system to track supplies yourself -- you are the central source of truth. If you have the weight to throw around, why wouldn't you just require your suppliers/bottlers to utilize a connection to your DB system instead of trying to shoehorn in blockchain? They might actually have a good reason, but I kinda feel like it's a waste.
if that's the problem they have, no customer should trust anyone involved...
this look like is a solid candidate for "stupid and unnecessary blockchain integration of the year"
CONA, which is an association Coca Cola's bottlere, have adopted it to allow the bottlers to trade using a neutral and immutable medium.