The problem is even if centralized systems are more efficient they tend to concentrate power in the central authority and hence can act as profit firewalls between producers and consumers. So I think your looking at it in the wrong lens. Smart contracts don't have to be efficient to compete; they just have to more fairly redistribute the rewards. So for things where there are lots of users and consumers (such as stock photography) blockchain is a perfect fit as the existing very efficient centralized systems take 70% of the profit from the sale of each photo. There are lots of areas like this where centralization is efficient but the efficiency dividends (and the bulk of the other profits ) are not passed onto the producers (air B&B/Uber/etc). Now you could argue that a CoOp model would be both centralized and pass on profits to the members of the CoOp but it can become unnecessarily bureaucratic as the loss of profit motive can create bloat in CoOp's which is why banks can often out compete Credit Unions even though they produce a profit.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Fair points.
One could argue just as much that centralised competitors of said companies, could cut down inefficiencies and bid for photographs with a better cut.
Companies have the advantage to usually bring a large consumer base to the table, whereas a sole decentralised image sharing platform would lack in this regard.
As technology evolves, we will get more efficient, the question is whether blockchain will be the technology that gets adopted for the usecase you mentionend.