- 6 Nov 2025
- Elara Crowthorne
- 24
DLT Use Case Decision Tool
Determine if Distributed Ledger Technology is the right solution for your business needs based on key criteria from real-world applications.
Answer these questions
Your DLT Recommendation
Most people think DLT and blockchain are the same thing. Theyâre not. Blockchain is just one way to build a distributed ledger - and not always the best one. If youâve only heard of DLT in the context of Bitcoin or Ethereum, youâre missing the bigger picture. Distributed Ledger Technology isnât about crypto. Itâs about trust without middlemen. Itâs about data that canât be secretly changed, shared instantly across organizations, and verified without a central boss calling the shots.
What DLT Really Is - Not What You Think
Imagine a shared Google Sheet that everyone in a network can see and update - but no one can delete or secretly edit past entries. Every change gets locked in with cryptography, and every participant has an identical copy. Thatâs DLT in simple terms. Itâs not a chain of blocks. Itâs not mining. Itâs not even necessarily public. Itâs a database that lives on many computers at once, synchronized by rules everyone agrees to follow.
Traditional databases? Theyâre controlled by one company, one server, one person. If that server crashes, the dataâs gone. If someone inside gets corrupted, they can alter records. DLT removes that single point of failure. Thereâs no boss. No central authority. Just a network of nodes - computers or institutions - that all hold the same version of the truth.
Thatâs why banks like BBVA use it. Not for Bitcoin. For international trade. They replaced paper documents and slow bank confirmations with a DLT system where suppliers, freight companies, and banks all see the same shipment status in real time. No more lost invoices. No more disputes over who signed what. Just one version of the truth, updated automatically.
How DLT Differs From Blockchain - The Key Breakdown
Blockchain is a type of DLT. But not all DLTs are blockchains. Think of it like this: all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Blockchain forces data into a linear chain of blocks, each linked to the one before it. Thatâs rigid. DLT doesnât care. It can store data as a graph, a tree, or even a directed acyclic graph (DAG). That flexibility matters.
Hereâs the real difference:
- Consensus: Blockchain often uses proof-of-work (like Bitcoin), which needs massive computing power. DLT can use faster, lighter methods like practical Byzantine fault tolerance (PBFT) or proof-of-stake - no mining required.
- Tokenization: Blockchain systems usually need a native token (like ETH or BTC) to pay for transactions or reward miners. DLT? Not at all. You can run a private DLT for supply chain tracking with zero tokens involved.
- Structure: Blockchain demands blocks in sequence. DLT allows parallel updates. Multiple changes can be added at once, not one after another. That means higher speed and better scalability.
- Access: Blockchain is often public. Anyone can join. DLT can be permissioned - only approved companies or individuals get to write data. Thatâs critical for banks, governments, and hospitals.
Take BitTorrent, for example. Launched in 2001, itâs one of the earliest real-world DLT systems. It didnât use blocks. It didnât have tokens. It just let users share files directly, with each user holding pieces of the data. No central server. No middleman. Thatâs DLT - and it worked long before Bitcoin existed.
Why DLT Matters More Than Blockchain Right Now
Blockchain got all the hype. But DLT is quietly solving real problems that blockchain struggles with.
Letâs say youâre a hospital. You need to share patient records with clinics, insurers, and labs. Blockchain? Too slow. Too expensive. Too public. DLT? Perfect. You set up a private network. Only authorized staff can add or view data. Changes are encrypted and immutable. No one can erase a diagnosis. No one can fake a prescription. And it runs on regular servers - no energy-hungry miners.
Or consider the UKâs Combined Online Information System. It uses DLT to track medical supplies across public hospitals. When a vaccine shipment leaves a warehouse, every stop - transport, storage, delivery - gets recorded automatically. If a batch goes missing, they trace it in minutes, not days. No blockchain needed. Just a secure, shared ledger.
Financial institutions are leading the charge. BBVA, HSBC, and others are part of the R3 and Hyperledger consortia - not to build crypto, but to replace legacy systems that still rely on fax machines and manual reconciliation. Theyâre using DLT to cut settlement times from days to minutes. To reduce fraud. To automate contracts with smart contracts - but without the crypto noise.
Real-World Use Cases That Have Nothing to Do With Crypto
DLT isnât just for finance. Itâs being used everywhere data needs to be trusted, not just shared.
- Supply Chains: Walmart uses DLT to track food from farm to shelf. If lettuce causes an outbreak, they find the exact batch in 2 seconds - not 7 days.
- Identity: Estoniaâs e-Residency program lets anyone in the world get a digital identity backed by DLT. No passport needed. Just a secure, tamper-proof record of who you are.
- Real Estate: In Sweden, land registry records are now on a DLT system. Buyers and sellers complete transactions without paper deeds. Titles canât be forged. Payments auto-trigger when conditions are met.
- Energy Grids: In Australia, neighbors with solar panels trade excess power using a DLT system. No utility company in the middle. Just direct, automated, verified trades.
These arenât experiments. Theyâre live, operational systems. And none of them require you to buy a single coin.
When You Should - and Shouldnât - Use DLT
DLT isnât magic. Itâs not always better than a regular database.
Use DLT when:
- You need multiple parties to trust each other without a central authority.
- Data integrity is critical - tampering could cost millions or lives.
- Youâre dealing with slow, manual processes (like paper-based trade finance).
- Transparency among participants is a competitive advantage.
Avoid DLT when:
- Youâre a small business with one database and one admin.
- Speed matters more than trust - like a mobile app with 10,000 daily users.
- You need to delete data (GDPR compliance). DLT is immutable by design.
- Youâre just trying to âblockchain your businessâ because itâs trendy.
Too many companies waste millions trying to force blockchain onto problems that a simple cloud database could solve. DLT is powerful - but only when the problem actually needs decentralization.
The Future of DLT - Less Hype, More Hardware
The next five years wonât be about new coins or NFTs. Itâll be about integration.
DLT systems are getting faster. New consensus protocols like HoneyBadgerBFT and Algorandâs proof-of-stake can handle thousands of transactions per second - far beyond Bitcoinâs 7. Theyâre also using less energy. Some DLT networks use less power than a single home air conditioner.
Interoperability is the big challenge. Right now, a DLT system used by a bank canât talk to one used by a hospital. But standards are forming. The Linux Foundationâs Hyperledger and the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance are building bridges. Soon, youâll see DLT networks talking to each other - like email systems did in the 90s.
The real winners? Companies that use DLT to fix broken processes - not to chase crypto fame.
DLT isnât the future of money. Itâs the future of truth.
Is DLT the same as blockchain?
No. Blockchain is one type of DLT - the most famous one. But DLT includes many other systems that donât use blocks, chains, or tokens. Think of blockchain as a specific recipe, and DLT as the whole kitchen. You can cook many meals without using that one recipe.
Do I need cryptocurrency to use DLT?
Absolutely not. Many DLT systems - especially private ones used by banks, governments, and hospitals - donât use any cryptocurrency at all. Tokens are optional. Theyâre only needed if you want to incentivize participation or create a digital asset. Most enterprise DLTs skip them entirely.
Can DLT be hacked?
Itâs extremely hard. Since data is copied across dozens or hundreds of nodes, youâd need to hack most of them at once to change anything. Plus, every change is cryptographically signed and verified. If one node tries to submit a fake entry, the network rejects it. Itâs not 100% impossible - but itâs far more secure than a single server.
Is DLT faster than traditional databases?
It depends. For simple tasks like logging user logins, a traditional database is faster. But for complex, multi-party processes - like cross-border payments or supply chain tracking - DLT is faster because it removes manual reconciliation, paperwork, and delays from third-party verification.
Whatâs the biggest mistake companies make with DLT?
Trying to use it just because itâs trendy. DLT adds complexity. If you donât have multiple untrusted parties needing to share and verify data, youâre better off with a regular cloud database. Donât force a solution that doesnât fit your problem.
Can DLT delete data?
No. Thatâs by design. Once data is added, it canât be erased - only marked as invalid or hidden. This makes it perfect for audit trails and compliance. But itâs a problem for privacy laws like GDPR, which require data deletion. Some DLT systems work around this by storing only hashes of data off-chain, keeping sensitive info in encrypted private storage.
24 Comments
DLT isn't blockchain. And that's it.
I love how this post cuts through the crypto noise. It's like realizing your toaster doesn't need Wi-Fi to make toast. DLT is just... better infrastructure. Quiet, reliable, and actually useful.
Imagine a world where your medical records, your property deed, and your supply chain receipts all just... exist. No chasing paper, no fax machines, no 'can you resend that?' DLT isn't sexy, but it's the quiet hero of trust. đ±
Stop pretending this isn't just blockchain with a new haircut. Everyone knows this is crypto trying to look corporate. Wake up.
Leo, you're missing the point. This isn't about crypto. It's about replacing fax machines with something that doesn't break every time someone sneezes. I've seen it in action-hospitals saving lives because they stopped trusting paper.
Benjamin, you nailed it. DLT doesn't need to be loud to be powerful. It's the silent upgrade no one tweets about-but everyone benefits from.
Let's be honest: most of these 'enterprise DLT' projects are glorified Excel sheets with a blockchain veneer. The real-world impact is negligible. The hype? Explosive. The ROI? Questionable. Don't confuse complexity with innovation.
If you're not using crypto, you're not using real DLT. This is just centralized databases with extra steps. You're being manipulated by corporate PR.
Wow. So you're telling me... we can have trust without a middleman? And it doesn't require me to buy a coin? I feel like I just discovered the internet again.
So what? This is just a database. Big deal. All this talk and no numbers. Where are the benchmarks? The cost savings? The adoption stats? This is hand-waving.
DLT is a Trojan horse for authoritarian control. No deletion? No central authority? Thatâs not freedom-thatâs a surveillance state with cryptographic locks. This is how governments track everything.
Think about it-what if truth itself became a public good? Not owned by corporations, not manipulated by bureaucrats. DLT doesnât just store data-it restores dignity to information. Itâs not tech. Itâs philosophy. And itâs beautiful
the whole 'no central authority' thing is kinda funny when you think about it. who's actually running the nodes? banks? governments? corporations? it's still centralized, just with more layers. also, i think 'immutable' is overrated. sometimes you need to fix mistakes.
Okay, Iâve been thinking about this all day. DLT isnât about replacing databases-itâs about replacing *distrust*. Weâve spent decades building systems that assume everyoneâs lying. DLT assumes everyoneâs honest... unless proven otherwise. Thatâs revolutionary. Not because itâs new tech-but because itâs new *faith*.
When Walmart finds bad lettuce in 2 seconds? Thatâs not efficiency. Thatâs care. Thatâs a parent knowing their kid wonât get sick because the system didnât let a lie slip through.
And Estoniaâs digital identity? Thatâs not a government app. Thatâs a personâs right to exist in the digital world without begging for permission.
People think DLT is about tech. Itâs not. Itâs about giving people back control. No tokens. No hype. Just... truth.
And yeah, itâs slow sometimes. And yeah, itâs complex. But so was the printing press. And we didnât throw it out because it took time to learn.
Weâre not building a new tool. Weâre building a new kind of society.
Respectfully, the author has presented a remarkably accurate and nuanced perspective. The conflation of blockchain with DLT is not merely a semantic error-it is a fundamental misunderstanding that impedes technological progress in enterprise environments. The operational advantages of permissioned DLT systems, particularly in regulated sectors such as healthcare and finance, are empirically verifiable and well-documented in peer-reviewed literature. The continued propagation of crypto-centric narratives undermines the legitimate, non-speculative applications of this technology.
Why are we letting foreigners dictate our tech future? Sweden and Estonia? What about American innovation? This is just Europe trying to out-tech us again. We need real American solutions.
While the post correctly distinguishes DLT from blockchain, it omits a critical point: regulatory uncertainty remains a significant barrier to adoption. Many institutions are hesitant to deploy DLT due to unclear legal frameworks surrounding data sovereignty and auditability across jurisdictions. Until regulators provide clarity, implementation will remain fragmented.
What I find beautiful is how DLT mirrors cultural values. In places like Estonia, itâs about individual sovereignty. In supply chains, itâs about accountability. In energy grids, itâs about community. Itâs not a tool-itâs a reflection of what a society chooses to value. And thatâs why itâs spreading-not because itâs trendy, but because itâs honest.
Who owns the nodes? Who controls the consensus protocol? Who audits the auditors? DLT is a myth. Itâs centralized control dressed in cryptography. The same few corporations, the same few governments, the same few developers-theyâre just hiding behind âdecentralizedâ labels. This is the new Orwellian playbook.
Letâs not confuse scalability with utility. While DAG-based DLTs like IOTA or Hedera offer higher throughput, they still lack the auditability and compliance rigor required for financial institutions. The trade-off between speed and verifiability remains unresolved in most non-blockchain DLTs. This is not a solved problem-itâs a trade-off.
Iâve been using DLT in my nonprofit for tracking donations. No crypto. No tokens. Just a shared ledger between donors, auditors, and field teams. The best part? People actually believe us now. Not because we said it-we showed them. Thatâs the real power.
Okay but what about the energy? I know you said 'less than an AC' but come on-every node is a computer running 24/7. That's thousands of servers. That's thousands of watts. That's thousands of tons of CO2. You can't just ignore the environmental cost because it's 'enterprise.' This is still tech with a footprint.
And don't get me started on the legal mess. If a node in Germany holds data that violates California law? Who's liable? Who pays the fine? This isn't magic-it's a liability minefield.
And why is no one talking about the fact that the biggest adopters are banks? Banks that caused the 2008 crash? Are we really trusting them with 'truth'?
DLT isn't the future. It's just the next corporate buzzword. And I'm tired of being sold solutions that solve problems no one asked for.
DLT is a Western tool for Western problems. In India, we have 800 million people without bank accounts. DLT won't help them. What they need is mobile money, not cryptographic ledgers. This is tech colonialism-exporting solutions that ignore local realities.
While I appreciate the technical clarity, the post's tone is disarmingly optimistic. It ignores the institutional inertia that still dominates enterprise adoption. DLT projects often fail not due to technical flaws, but because legacy stakeholders refuse to relinquish control. The real challenge isn't cryptography-it's human politics. And thatâs a problem no algorithm can solve.