Blockchain Companies Have a Language Problem
And It’s Killing Their Institutional Deals
--
I’ve worked in blockchain since 2019, and it has an underlying problem that nobody wants to address. The industry has built an insider vocabulary so dense that even simple ideas arrive wrapped in tribal terms. This is confusing its most important potential customers.
This secret language might work between engineers, founders, crypto-native teams, and people who spend too much time in Discord and Telegram groups.
But it fails, quietly, with institutional customers. In meetings where nobody wants to admit they don’t understand what’s being sold.
Why This is Becoming a Big Problem
Financial companies are increasingly looking to solve problems with blockchain infrastructure, but they don’t understand the language. Why would they?
They understand infrastructure. They understand systems, servers, services, environments, access, controls, resilience, liability, security, availability, compliance, and operational risk.
They do not understand crypto-native shorthand. And when people don’t understand something, they don’t buy it. Often, they walk away without ever saying why.
Even Basic Terms Can Be Ambiguous
When a blockchain insider starts talking about a node, they assume the meaning is obvious. Node is the accepted term and technically correct. However, to many institutional buyers, it can mean almost anything.
Is it a server? Is it software? Is it a machine? Is it something they run, or something you run? Is it a validator? An RPC endpoint? Does it hold assets? Does it sign transactions? Does it create operational risk?
The word is doing too much work. This happens constantly in the blockchain ecosystem.
Much of the Language Has Become a Badge
Many blockchain terms are more than just words. They’re shibboleths, social differentiators; a way to signal you’re “in the know”.
Even insiders struggle to keep up. One month, everyone’s talking about DeFi. Then it’s L2s. Then modularity. Then account abstraction. Then restaking. Then intents. Then agentic payments.
If the language keeps shifting for insiders, it never stabilises for buyers.
So how is anyone supposed to keep up? Never mind busy financial executives with their own dense terminology.
It’s Not Hard to Fix, But It Requires Discipline
The shibboleths aren’t going anywhere. They’re the natural result of a fast-moving technical domain. But they should be contained to internal discussions, not customer-facing conversations.
Instead, blockchain folk should lead with an anchor. Something that grounds the concept in the buyer’s world. Then explain the function. Only then introduce the native term if it’s necessary and useful.
Not: “We provide decentralised staking infrastructure.”
But: “We run and manage transaction-signing infrastructure on your behalf, so you can participate in network validation without operational risk. In crypto terms, that’s staking.”
Same concept. Different outcome.
Blockchains have a communication problem. If the buyer has to translate what you’re saying, they won’t.
