The first on our blockchain technology stocks list is 360 Blockchain, formerly 360 Capital Financial, that changed its name to 360 Blockchain and began trading under the symbol CODE on October 10. Since going public, the company has announced a joint venture with NOS Blockchain, a subsidiary of Nerds on Site, that its acquisition SV Cryptlab entered into contracts to mine ethereum and Zcash, and the establishment of 360 Blockchain USA, a subsidiary to focus on developing and investing in blockchain technologies in the US.

Peer-to-Peer Lending: Earn up to 10% in returns by lending individuals, organizations and small companies who don't qualify for traditional financing through peer-to-peer lending platforms like Lending Club. You can lend $100, $1,000, or more to borrowers who meet lending platform financial standards. Like a bank, you'll earn interest on the loan - often at higher returns than banks usually get.
Identity management is an application to watch, but the list goes on and on. The Chamber of Digital Commerce, the leading trade association that represents the blockchain industry, runs the Smart Contracts Alliance. The Chamber and Alliance (in collaboration with Deloitte) released a white paper entitled "Smart Contracts: 12 Uses Cases for Business & Beyond" detailing a dozen broad areas and industries where smart contracts could change the game.
The fact that disruption can take time helps to explain why incumbents frequently overlook disrupters. For example, when Netflix launched, in 1997, its initial service wasn’t appealing to most of Blockbuster’s customers, who rented movies (typically new releases) on impulse. Netflix had an exclusively online interface and a large inventory of movies, but delivery through the U.S. mail meant selections took several days to arrive. The service appealed to only a few customer groups—movie buffs who didn’t care about new releases, early adopters of DVD players, and online shoppers. If Netflix had not eventually begun to serve a broader segment of the market, Blockbuster’s decision to ignore this competitor would not have been a strategic blunder: The two companies filled very different needs for their (different) customers.
Another possibility is to invest in the initial coin offerings, or ICOs, of new blockchain projects. Blockchain companies issue cryptocurrencies or other tokens through ICOs in order to raise capital. There is a bit more risk in this route, as this new form of crowdfunding is still rather unregulated, but the returns reported thus far have been stellar.
Some of these mining pools are very large, and represent more than 20 percent of the total network computing power. This has clear implications for network security, as seen in the double-spend attack example above. Even if one of these pools could potentially gain 50 percent of the network computing power, the further back along the chain a block goes, the more secure the transactions within it become.
The term disruptive technologies was coined by Clayton M. Christensen and introduced in his 1995 article Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave,[9] which he cowrote with Joseph Bower. The article is aimed at management executives who make the funding or purchasing decisions in companies, rather than the research community. He describes the term further in his book The Innovator's Dilemma.[10] Innovator's Dilemma explored the cases of the disk drive industry (which, with its rapid generational change, is to the study of business what fruit flies are to the study of genetics, as Christensen was advised in the 1990s[11]) and the excavating equipment industry (where hydraulic actuation slowly displaced cable-actuated movement). In his sequel with Michael E. Raynor, The Innovator's Solution,[12] Christensen replaced the term disruptive technology with disruptive innovation because he recognized that few technologies are intrinsically disruptive or sustaining in character; rather, it is the business model that the technology enables that creates the disruptive impact. However, Christensen's evolution from a technological focus to a business-modelling focus is central to understanding the evolution of business at the market or industry level. Christensen and Mark W. Johnson, who cofounded the management consulting firm Innosight, described the dynamics of "business model innovation" in the 2008 Harvard Business Review article "Reinventing Your Business Model".[13] The concept of disruptive technology continues a long tradition of identifying radical technical change in the study of innovation by economists, and the development of tools for its management at a firm or policy level.
Slock.it: Slock.it is the manifestation of how blockchain and the IoT fit together. Built on the Ethereum blockchain, the startup is embedding smart contracts in connected cars, homes, and other IoT devices with the goal of enabling anyone to rent, sell, or share their connected property without a middleman. Think about renting your apartment on Airbnb with Slock.it automatically opening and locking your door.
To this point, we’ve addressed only whether or not Uber is disruptive to the taxi business. The limousine or “black car” business is a different story, and here Uber is far more likely to be on a disruptive path. The company’s UberSELECT option provides more-luxurious cars and is typically more expensive than its standard service—but typically less expensive than hiring a traditional limousine. This lower price imposes some compromises, as UberSELECT currently does not include one defining feature of the leading incumbents in this market: acceptance of advance reservations. Consequently, this offering from Uber appeals to the low end of the limousine service market: customers willing to sacrifice a measure of convenience for monetary savings. Should Uber find ways to match or exceed incumbents’ performance levels without compromising its cost and price advantage, the company appears to be well positioned to move into the mainstream of the limo business—and it will have done so in classically disruptive fashion.
How can we participate in blockchain theory beyond the technological advances? One way is to invest in cryptocurrencies – the other is to invest in blockchain shares. The complexity of these shares depends primarily on the broker used. Not all brokers list blockchain shares, but we have had good experiences with the free brokers at Comdirect and ING-Diba.
For example, a typical stock transaction can be executed within microseconds, often without human intervention. However, the settlement—the ownership transfer of the stock—can take as long as a week. That’s because the parties have no access to each other’s ledgers and can’t automatically verify that the assets are in fact owned and can be transferred. Instead a series of intermediaries act as guarantors of assets as the record of the transaction traverses organizations and the ledgers are individually updated.
Atlas Cloud Enterprises is based in Vancouver, BC whose focus is becoming a top cryptocurrency mining and technology operations company in North America. Atlas owns its facility in Electric City, Washington, which is used for digital currency mining. The company is aiming to execute a proposed 1,700 application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) machine expansion this year, and increasing that number to 2,5000 by Q2 in 2019.

I’d stay away from ICOs. There is just too much froth in the market right now to know what is real and what isn’t. You’re talking about the inflow of a lot of money into a single source at one time, which is like a Petri dish for greed. I’m not saying that ICOs are inherently sketchy, I’m just saying that in the twenty-teens, even IPOs have their problems, and those problems are magnified with ICOs
Teams holding ICOs have yet to collaborate with regulators to develop strong legal frameworks, and state bodies continue to grapple with the question of how to regulate inherently decentralized protocols. And, given that major cryptocurrencies (like bitcoin) have often been used for illicit black-market transactions, regulatory clarity could be an uphill battle.

We estimate that, together, applications of the 12 technologies discussed in the report could have a potential economic impact between $14 trillion and $33 trillion a year in 2025. This estimate is neither predictive nor comprehensive. It is based on an in-depth analysis of key potential applications and the value they could create in a number of ways, including the consumer surplus that arises from better products, lower prices, a cleaner environment, and better health.
×