# Crypto-necessity test Run it before scoring. An idea that fails gets redirected, not polished. ## The kill question > What gets worse if I remove the blockchain? A vague, aesthetic or marketing answer ("transparency", "community ownership", "web3-native") is a fail. ## Passes: the chain is load-bearing At least one of these has to be central to the product, not a feature on the side: - Settlement between parties who don't trust a common intermediary - Money or ownership that is programmable (escrow, streaming, conditional release, composable positions) - Open participation: anyone can supply, consume or build on it without permission - Composability with assets or protocols already onchain (it plugs into existing liquidity, tokens or programs) - Censorship resistance that the actual users care about, not one the founder assumes they do - State, identity or coordination that several parties must be able to verify independently ## Fails: the chain is decoration - A token reward bolted onto an ordinary product - An NFT badge that carries no economic or coordination value - "Decentralised X" where users never asked for X to be decentralised - A token as the fundraising mechanism rather than part of the product - "Interoperability later" with nothing composable today ## Redirect, don't just reject Name the stronger crypto angle hiding in the weak idea: | Weak framing | Where the chain could matter | |---|---| | Decentralised CDN | A bandwidth marketplace, but only if open supply, price discovery and settlement are the wedge | | AI wrapper with a token | Agent-to-agent payments, metered usage settled per call, or onchain coordination between agents | | Another stablecoin | A vertical workflow where stablecoins fix a real pain: cross-border treasury, instant payout, embedded yield | ## Incumbent check - Why haven't Stripe, Plaid, AWS, Shopify or Coinbase built this already? - If one of them did, what would still make this startup matter? No defensible answer to both: downgrade or kill.