ACCESSIBILITY:Given that we’re looking for a solution that is focused on the inclusion of historically disenfranchised and marginalized smallholder farmers, we need to make sure that our blockchain isn’t an “enterprise blockchain” that is built for those already holding the power. We need a solution that works equally in the favor of everyone, and cannot be controlled, manipulated, or weaponized by more powerful supply chain participants. Likewise, many digital solutions require a high-tech, systems approach to transformation. This may be an approachable, if still challenging, prospect for multinational organizations—but is simply not viable for all actors along coffee supply chains. The often remote, rural nature of the first half of coffee’s journey from bean to brew, renders a high-tech approach to recording data an untenable solution. While mobile penetration in the top coffee- producing nations is relatively high, most blockchains are not built to be low-tech accessible. COSTS: Most blockchains apply fees based on the volatile price of a native cryptocurrency. The blockchain solution we need is not crypto-based. In our case, a fee system tied to a cryptocurrency provides no value and is actually incompatible with the function of transacting small values, often less than $100 in goods moving at a time. We need to have low costs, tied instead to the assets created or transferred over the network. A low-cost system will provide a more inclusive and accessible network for a larger diversity of smaller actors. PUBLIC VERIFIABILITY: Blockchains can be either public or private. In the case of supply chain transparency, it’s fundamental that all actors—from farmer to consumer—can legitimize the claims made. Only public blockchains can provide the level of transparency, without any compromise to the pseudonymity afforded by blockchain technology in general. Individual supply chain actor’s identities will remain obscured, while the proof of data entered on chain will remain publicly available. 12