Why Businesses Are Pivoting to Public Blockchains

Imagine waking up to find nearly half of your web traffic gone overnight. No warning – just an algorithm tweak by a tech giant that leaves your business reeling. This isn’t fantasy; it’s exactly what happened to Chegg when Google introduced AI-generated answers atop search results.

Chegg’s non-subscriber traffic plummeted 49% in January 2025 after Google morphed from a neutral search engine into an “answer engine” that kept users on Google’s site with content taken from Chegg​.

The lesson is clear: build on someone else’s platform, and you play by their rules – rules that can change at any time.

In the Web2 era, companies learned that walled gardens – closed platforms controlled by one powerful player – can become traps. Whether it’s Google’s search algorithm, Amazon’s marketplace, or Facebook’s news feed, the story is the same: depend on a centralized platform, and you’re at its mercy.

As enterprises explore blockchain, they still went for private, permissioned blockchain initially – many are shifting away from private, permissioned blockchains (run by one company) toward public, permissionless ones controlled by no single entity.

When the Platform Calls the Shots

• Google’s Grip on Search: Google can dictate the fate of online content. Chegg’s story shows how a tweak to Google’s search (adding AI answer boxes) diverted users away from Chegg’s site. Google used Chegg’s own content to answer student questions, keeping traffic on Google and causing a devastating loss of visitors and revenue.​

  Google changed the rules overnight, and Chegg had no say.

• Genius vs. Google: The lyrics site Genius caught Google copying its song lyrics in search results. Genius sued, arguing that letting this slide would enable Big Tech to “steal content without repercussions”.

  
  The case nearly reached the Supreme Court, but ultimately Google prevailed. As Genius warned, a dominant platform can “swallow up… competitors by misappropriating their content”​ – and the little guy can’t stop it.

• Amazon’s Marketplace Power: A House antitrust investigation found Amazon used data from third-party sellers to copy popular products. In other words, Amazon might clone your best-selling product and undercut you. On Amazon’s turf, the house always wins.

• Facebook’s News Feed Trap: In 2018, Facebook prioritized friends’ posts over news and brand content. Referral traffic to many news sites plummeted – some publishers saw Facebook visits drop by 20–30%​. It was a harsh lesson: the platform changed the game mid-play.

In each case, one company could rewrite the rules unilaterally. Everyone else had to live with it or lose out. That’s the risk of centralized platforms: control is concentrated, and you're vulnerable if you’re not in control.

I know this was a long-winded way of saying this. However, I wanted to make the point that I do not think is laid out clearly anywhere.

The Trouble with Private Blockchains

Initially, many enterprises assumed the answer was to build their own private blockchains or join small consortia – closed networks where only approved parties participate. The idea was to reap the benefits of a shared ledger without ceding control. In theory, great. In practice, it raises the question of control by whom?

Consider a scenario: JP Morgan launches a private blockchain for interbank transactions and invites rivals like Bank of America to join. But if JP Morgan is the gatekeeper of that network, why would Bank of America trust it? It’s like asking a competitor to play a game where you’re also the referee. No thanks.

Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) spent $100M+ on a private blockchain settlement system before abandoning it. (Check out the paper: Public crypto networks as financial market infrastructures)

We saw a real example with TradeLens, a shipping blockchain co-developed by Maersk and IBM. TradeLens aimed to be a neutral industry utility, but other shipping giants were uneasy about Maersk’s influence. One analysis noted that “centralized control… and concerns over data privacy and neutrality” ultimately stymied TradeLens’s adoption.

Despite early traction, it never achieved industry-wide buy-in and was eventually shut down.​

In short, a permissioned blockchain controlled by one company isn’t much better than a proprietary platform. If the host can tilt the rules in its favor for rules, prices etc others won’t join – the Google/Amazon lesson all over again in blockchain form.

No one wants to be a tenant farmer on a competitor’s ledger.

Choosing Neutral Ground: Permissionless Blockchains

Facing these realities, businesses are pivoting toward permissionless (public) blockchains. They’re doing so because public blockchains are neutral ground: no single participant can change how the platform operates unilaterally. The rules are baked into open-source code and upheld by network consensus.

On Ethereum, nearly a million nodes enforce the rules, and changes require community agreement. If JP Morgan and Bank of America use Ethereum to transact, neither controls the network – they operate under the same rules as everyone else (and they are part of the community).

No one can quietly tweak the platform to gain an edge. This level playing field is why companies are exploring public networks for supply chain tracking, cross-industry payments, and other partnerships. They want assurance that no partner or middleman can pull the rug out from under them.

Public doesn’t mean “no rules” – it means no surprise rules. Public blockchain governance is decentralized: updates require broad consensus, not a CEO’s edict. That stability gives businesses predictability.

Ethereum also does not use a ‘token' based governance structure (buy enough and yield enormous power), another risk factor many other blockchains have.

Web3: Rewriting Digital Power Structures

This shift toward open, neutral platforms aligns with the ethos of Web3 – a decentralized internet where users and builders have more control. Web3 apps run on networks “communally controlled by [their] users” rather than a handful of corporations.

In a Web3 world, businesses wouldn’t have to fear a platform tweak wiping out their audience or profits overnight. Commerce might occur on decentralized marketplaces where terms are transparent and set by the community, not dictated by one company.

Content could live on distributed networks where no central authority can arbitrarily throttle its reach. Web3 is ambitious, but it promises to give everyone – including businesses – more direct control over their data, customer relationships, and transactions.

Key Takeaways for Business Leaders

• Beware Walled Gardens: Be cautious of platforms (or blockchains) controlled by a single entity. Today’s convenience can become tomorrow’s risk if a gatekeeper changes the rules.

• Opt for Neutral Platforms: Build on neutral, open networks whenever possible. Permissionless blockchains provide common ground – the rules are transparent and can’t be changed on a whim, so everyone plays by the same rulebook.

• Learn from Web2: Chegg’s traffic crash​, Genius’s lyrics saga​, and Amazon’s seller squeeze​ show the perils of over-reliance on someone else’s platform. Don’t put your business in a position where another company holds all the cards.

• Adopt a Web3 Mindset: Even if you’re not launching a crypto project, Web3 principles – transparency, decentralization, shared governance – can inform your strategy. The more stake and say you have in the platforms you rely on, the safer you’ll be from arbitrary upheavals.

Bottom line: As blockchain tech matures, the question isn’t just private vs. public in a technical sense, but closed vs. open in a strategic sense.

By choosing open, permissionless systems, business leaders are betting that collaboration on neutral ground will outlast and outperform any walled garden.

In a world where giants like Google and Amazon can shift the playing field overnight, that bet on neutrality could be the key to staying in control.

Enjoyed this? Share or Refer a friend! enterpriseonchain.com/subscribe