"The blockchain" won't make "the supply chain more transparent for consumers" but there are blockchains that can be structured in such a way that the public can access supply chain information in a permissioned manner. The organizations building out the individual blockchain networks will have to choose blockchains with the appropriate infrastructure or build layers on top of the blockchain to facilitate such access.  The real questions here may be, with blockchain implementations, will we see which companies want to keep their supply chains obscure and what will we do about it as consumers?  

As people will be looking at the CREBACO report as a resource to know which exchanges are high quality and safe and which are not, there is a big responsibility in this choice.  To be globally relevant, the list needs to include the exchanges that have ease of access for citizens of countries around the world.  Unless the list is going to be only "best of", there would be a value to the community in taking 3-5 of the top exchanges by volume and doing an analysis on them that includes any evidence of wash trading, price manipulation, evidence of pay to play, etc.    For the remaining slots, you could come up with categories like "best UX/UI", "best customer service", "best track record", "best for a beginner", "lowest fees" etc. to give the community a focus point when selecting an exchange... Just a few thoughts. Hope this is helpful.  

With emerging technology such as blockchain you may need to keep the door open for a while, as the most value-added projects are still yet to come.  Value-add may be difficult to gauge for many early-stage projects.  It may be a good idea to monitor the progress of individuals (members) on their projects and ask for regular reporting to ensure they are on track, committed, and engaged in the community - and move them off if they don't make acceptable progress/contribution over a certain period of time.  Sponsors may be a bit different....depending on their contribution.

Not a bad idea.  But speaking fees are driven largely by celebrity/publications status more than anything else.  If they don't fall into one of those two categories then compensation may need to be reconsidered.  I recently chaired a conference for IEEE and we had some high profile speakers, but paid no speaking fees at all and only compensated travel for a couple of them due to distance.  It is the policy of IEEE and many other organizations to NEVER pay speakers!  Adopt the same policy and you'll level the playing field pretty quick!  There's always someone else just as good - unless a certain speaker is needed for a strategic/marketing reason. 

One of the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) technical committees (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 41) which serves the Power Utility industry, are working to incorporate blockchain technology into IoT solutions, which could serve as the backbone for Smart Cities projects and others.  This work is still relatively new however.

It is important to note that International Technical Standards take time to evolve, because they are developed by large groups of representatives worldwide who must all agree on the standard and support its adoption.  Indeed, such standards are often shaped by early adopters themselves who have the most experience. I would encourage anyone interested in such standards to get involved and become a part of the process - your input is needed!

Standards are also important because many highly regulated industries, such as Utilities, are very standards driven.  Contributing to such standards can help accelerate adoption of blockchain in these industries.

There are also standards organizations dedicated to Blockchain, one example is BiTA, Blockchain in Transport Alliance.  

Provenance (tracking of goods) and Regulatory compliance seem to be the most important use cases related to supply chain, and these can be broken down into several sub-segments.  

By documenting the provenance of goods as they move thru the supply chain, the breadth of recalls can be reduced and problems within the supply chain can be more readily isolated, diagnosed, and resolved.  Regulatory compliance can be verified as goods move thru the supply chain as well (inspections, quality controls, etc).  Tracking of goods can assist with inventory management and inventory tracking, especially when components are manufactured in several different countries and assembled in another.

As for change in practices, blockchain will demand more digitalization of the applications/processes at the various steps within the supply chain.  For example, there are often delays at import terminals/ports due to missing paperwork (bills of lading, etc.)  By going digital, this information can be transferred in real time so that terminals can plan and execute more efficiently without compromising privacy.  But this, as do other scenarios, will require shippers, receivers, etc. to digitalize their information, and/or export their information into the blockchain system via an API.

Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG, and Pricewaterhouse Coopers are ALL heavily invested in the integration of blockchain into enterprise level organizations.  Regulatory uncertainty has been an issue for them all and most of their focus has been on POC's and not large scale implementations. 

However, Deloitte's recent global blockchain survey highlighted "Blockchain Gets Down to Business"!  The hope here is that their POC's will start to convert into widespread implementation of blockchain solutions that can show ROI.

EY has boldly stated that "Blockchain will do for networks of enterprises and business ecosystems what enterprise resource planning (ERP) did for the single company." (I did get a chuckle that ey.com also opined, "blockchain will.... increase protection against cybersecurity.") EY seems to be angling toward serving connective blockchain networks..

KPMG is leaning heavily on its relationship with Microsoft and focusing on blockchain services on the cloud.  It proves out that this is a fast-paced time even for multi billion dollar companies when they can't finish their sentences correctly...“Additionally, KPMG member firms offer collaborative services with Microsoft, combining Microsoft's blockchain and cloud technologies with our extensive offerings and expertise, know much.“  https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2017/02/digital-ledger-services-at-kpmg-fs.html 

PWC is still focused on whether blockchains are trustworthy and the reality that most executives are still struggling to understand implementation and justify cost... 

ALL 4 seem to still be in education and executive hand-holding mode and are really starting to highlight the power of network effect. 

Whose network will dominate globally?  That remains to be seen...

This is just a super rudimentary analysis and would benefit from multiple perspectives and reviews....

Looking forward to others adding to this and to the organizations mentioned fixing their websites.. ;)  It doesn't matter if you are an enterprise organization, one of the big four, the Fortune 500 or a bootstrapping startup, WE ARE ALL A WORK IN PROGRESS. ;) 

A node operator runs software that keeps a full copy of the blockchain and broadcasts transactions across the network. Nodes are needed in order to make blockchains work.

An operator ensures that nodes run with enough resources to keep nodes stable and performant. Nodes need to have enough RAM, disk space, bandwidth, etc. to stay operational and serve the network.

A masternode is a special type of collateralized and incentivized node that offers additional services to the network in exchange for a portion of block rewards and fees. (Examples are anonymous transactions, instant confirmations, file storage, encrypted messaging, etc.) Masternodes must stay operational at all times in order to earn rewards. A masternode therefore is typically deployed on a VPS (Virtual Private Server) with a static IP in a data center.

Since new software versions are often released (with new features, bug fixes, and security enhancements), node operators must maintain current versions of software. Additionally, if a node should fall out of sync with the network (through an inadvertent fork of the blockchain, for example), a node operator might have to resync the node and get it back on the proper chain at the correct block height. A node operator needs to stay up to date with developments (usually through social media channels) to understand the latest status and requirements of the blockchains they support.

Additionally, a node operator might run nodes on behalf of clients, so contract terms/commission rates must be negotiated and implemented.

As for blockchains without node operators, there are permissioned blockchains that don't allow public node operators, but have private node operators nonetheless. And in DPoS (Delegated Proof-of-Stake) networks, there are limits to the number of nodes allowed to append blocks to the blockchain, but still have node operators. In fact, these operators, known as delegates, have even more responsibility because they are chosen by the community to run nodes that secure the blockchain.

Like other stakeholders in the network (ie. miners, stakers, developers, and users), node operators are vital to the operation, security, and health of blockchains.