Most of the security bonuses feel anemic when it's still humans entering data into a system to track food vs. how cryptocurrencies use blockchains to track transactions.
But now you've also raised the technical requirements and are betting the security on non-technical farmers and farm staff. Even if they have technical chops since farm equipment is more complex these days, they likely don't have security chops.
There's already 'country-of-origin' scams in international shipping, so it's not a far stretch to apply the same concept to farming supply chains. Throw a disposable proxy farm in front of your real farms and change the origin. When it's human-entered information, blockchain doesn't prevent someone being dishonest from the beginning, and it lures people into a false sense of security because of IBM's advertising.
I guess limiting fraud to the beginning of the supply chain is a step in the right direction though. I don't think blockchain solves chain-of-custody well though.
But now you've also raised the technical requirements and are betting the security on non-technical farmers and farm staff. Even if they have technical chops since farm equipment is more complex these days, they likely don't have security chops.
There's already 'country-of-origin' scams in international shipping, so it's not a far stretch to apply the same concept to farming supply chains. Throw a disposable proxy farm in front of your real farms and change the origin. When it's human-entered information, blockchain doesn't prevent someone being dishonest from the beginning, and it lures people into a false sense of security because of IBM's advertising.
I guess limiting fraud to the beginning of the supply chain is a step in the right direction though. I don't think blockchain solves chain-of-custody well though.