Blockchain in Logistics: What Happened?
Blockchain promised a shared source of truth for global trade. AI has moved faster. Here is why.
Blockchain was going to fix logistics.
That was the pitch, anyway.
A few years ago, almost every technology event had a session on blockchain, smart contracts or distributed ledgers. Shipping documents would become tamper-proof. Payments would release themselves. Cargo and ownership records would travel across one shared digital network.
For an industry still tied to PDFs, emails and paper Bills of Lading, the idea felt overdue. Perhaps too neat.
Then the noise faded.
Artificial intelligence took the main stage. Vendors began adding AI agents, document readers, forecasting tools and automated workflows. Blockchain did not vanish, but it stopped being treated as the answer to every supply chain problem.
So, was blockchain overhyped? Yes. But that does not mean it failed. The better question is why adoption slowed, why AI has moved faster, and where blockchain still earns its place.
Why blockchain looked perfect for logistics
Logistics is built around shared activity, but rarely shared systems.
A shipment can pass through a shipper, freight forwarder, carrier, port, customs authority, haulier, warehouse, bank, insurer and consignee. Each party records part of the journey. Each may use different software. The same data can be typed, copied and checked several times.
That creates friction. It also creates doubt.
Which ETA is current? Was the document changed? Has title to the goods transferred? Who approved the charge?
Blockchain offered a shared record that could not be quietly rewritten. G2 describes it as a distributed, immutable ledger in which copies of the record are updated and validated across a peer-to-peer network. For logistics teams, the appeal was clear: one reliable history of events, visible to approved parties, with a time stamp behind every change.[1]
The strongest use cases were never really about cryptocurrency. They were about proving a document was issued, ownership changed, a milestone happened, or data had not been altered later.
That is a valuable capability. It still is.
Smart contracts made the promise bigger
Then came smart contracts.
The name can be misleading. A smart contract is not necessarily a legal contract, and it is not “smart” in the AI sense. It is code that carries out an agreed action when set conditions are met.
A container is discharged and the free-time clock starts. A signed proof of delivery arrives and payment is released. A digital document changes hands and title moves with it.
Done well, this removes waiting, checking and chasing.
Yet there was a catch: the code could only act on data it trusted.
If the wrong milestone entered the system, the smart contract could carry out the wrong action with perfect efficiency. If two parties disagreed on the source of truth, the software simply exposed the argument earlier.
Blockchain can protect a record after it is written. It cannot guarantee the original input was correct.
The technology worked. The network was harder.
The biggest lesson from the blockchain era is that technology can work while the commercial model fails.
TradeLens is the case most IT Directors will remember. IBM and Maersk built the blockchain-enabled platform to digitise global trade and create a more secure exchange of shipping information. Maersk described the platform as viable. The problem was wider participation and commercial viability.
When the closure was announced in November 2022, Maersk said the required level of full global industry collaboration had not been achieved. TradeLens went offline in the first quarter of 2023.[2]
That sentence tells the story.
A shared ledger becomes more useful as more organisations join it. One freight forwarder cannot create an industry network alone. Participants need common rules, technical standards, legal certainty, a reason to pay and confidence in whoever runs the network.
A carrier may hesitate to place sensitive data into an ecosystem linked to a competitor. A forwarder may question who controls access. A shipper may not want another portal, fee or integration.
This is not a small technical snag. It is the whole problem.
Forbes questioned the supply chain blockchain hype as far back as 2017, noting that proof-of-concept projects were common while day-to-day use remained limited. The industry had plenty of demonstrations, but far fewer shared networks that could support themselves commercially.[3]
Sometimes a normal database was enough
There was another awkward question: did every use case need blockchain?
Often, no.
If one company controls the workflow and users already trust it, a secure cloud database may be quicker and cheaper. It can provide audit logs, permissions and API access without the extra governance of a distributed ledger.
This does not make blockchain pointless. It makes it specific.
Blockchain is strongest where several independent parties need to share a record but do not want one party to own the truth. It is less compelling when the process sits inside one business, or when a trusted platform operator already exists.
G2’s overview of Blockchain as a Service reflects both sides. Managed services reduce technical burden, yet G2 also flags vendor lock-in, limited customisation, regulatory issues and data privacy.[4]
The question is not, “Could blockchain do this?” It is, “Does it solve a problem our existing architecture cannot solve well enough?”
CargoX shows what practical blockchain looks like
Blockchain has not disappeared from logistics. It has become narrower and more useful.
CargoX is a good example. Its platform focuses on electronic trade documents, including electronic Bills of Lading. It uses blockchain to sign, time-stamp and transfer ownership of documents, creating a clear record of possession. CargoX says its platform supports more than 65 document types.[5]
This use case fits the technology.
A Bill of Lading can be a document of title, not just a PDF. Proving who holds it, when it transferred and whether it changed has real value.
CargoX is not trying to place every warehouse scan, email and delivery note on a blockchain. It is applying the ledger where trust, ownership and document integrity matter most.
That is the quieter future of blockchain: less theatre, more precision.
CargoX points to the industry goal for Bills of Lading to become electronic by 2030. Legal reforms and common standards are making digital trade documents more practical. Blockchain can support that shift, though it is not the only route.[6]
Why AI moved faster
AI followed a very different path into logistics.
Blockchain usually asks a network of companies to change together. AI can create value inside one company.
A freight forwarder can introduce an AI document reader without asking a shipping line, port or customer to join a consortium. It can extract invoice data, match charges, create records or flag exceptions. External parties may not know the process changed.
That makes the buying cycle easier. The return is easier to explain too.
If a team spends hours reading purchase invoices, AI can reduce manual entry. If staff rekey data from emails and attachments, an agent can prepare the record. Software can also highlight buried exceptions.
These are local problems with local owners and visible costs.
Gartner predicts that by 2030, half of cross-functional supply chain management solutions will use intelligent agents to carry out decisions across the ecosystem. It has also warned that 60% of supply chain digital adoption efforts could fail to deliver their promised value by 2028.[7][8]
Both points matter. AI has momentum, but buying the label is not the same as fixing the process.
BIFA has listed AI, blockchain and IoT-enabled devices among the technologies changing shipment tracking, customs clearance and logistics operations. They can sit together. They do not need to fight for one winner.[9]
AI and blockchain solve different problems
AI and blockchain are often placed in the same “emerging technology” bucket, but they do different jobs.
Blockchain is mainly about records, trust and shared control. AI is mainly about interpretation, prediction and action.
Blockchain can prove that a document has not changed. AI can read it and understand the contents. Blockchain can show that ownership moved between parties. AI can compare the document with a shipment record and spot missing data. A smart contract can release payment; AI can flag unusual evidence before it does.
Put simply, blockchain protects the history. AI works with the information.
They may work together. An AI agent could read a trade document, validate key fields and prepare a transaction. A blockchain record could then preserve the approved event, ownership change or contractual trigger.
Still, joining two fashionable technologies does not double the business case. It can double the complexity.
Was blockchain overhyped?
Honestly, yes.
It was sold as a cure for problems that often came from old systems, weak data, missing standards and poor commercial cooperation. None of those issues disappear because a ledger is distributed.
Some projects started with the technology and searched for a problem afterwards.
Yet the backlash can go too far. Blockchain did not fail simply because it did not replace every logistics database. It forced serious discussion about digital ownership, shared records, document integrity and trust between trading partners.
It also exposed a truth logistics technology teams know well: the hardest part of a shared platform is not writing the code. It is persuading the market to behave like a network.
What IT Directors should take from it
The lesson is not “avoid blockchain.” Nor is it “AI has won.”
Start with the friction.
Where is time being lost? Which disputes keep returning? Which documents need proof of ownership? Which tasks depend on reading unstructured data?
Use AI when the problem is interpretation, classification, prediction or repetitive admin. Consider blockchain when the problem is shared trust, tamper evidence, title transfer or a record controlled by several independent parties. Use a normal database when it does the job with less cost and fuss.
That sounds obvious. During a hype cycle, it is surprisingly easy to forget.
CocoonOPS takes this practical route with AI. CocoonFMS says the platform applies AI to document scanning, bookings, milestone creation, automated shipment generation and purchase invoice matching. The aim is not to add a fashionable badge. It is to reduce mistakes, highlight missing information and remove repetitive work while keeping operators in control.[10]
That is the standard every new technology should meet.
Blockchain did not die. It grew up.
Blockchain in logistics moved from grand promise to selective use.
It did not become the universal operating layer for global trade. It was overhyped, adoption was harder than expected, and some high-profile projects closed. Yet it remains useful where ownership, proof and shared trust carry enough value to justify the network around it.
AI can improve a workflow before the rest of the market agrees to change. That is why it is moving faster. It meets logistics teams where they are.
AI will have its own period of disappointment. Gartner’s warning on failed digital adoption matters. Poor data, vague goals and weak processes can make an AI project as frustrating as an abandoned blockchain pilot.
The sensible view is less dramatic.
Blockchain was not the answer to logistics. AI is not the answer either.
Both are tools. Useful tools, when used for the right job.
For IT Directors, that may be the most valuable conclusion. Ignore the loudest promise. Look at the process, the participants and the cost of doing nothing. Then choose the technology that removes real friction without creating a new layer of it.
Sources and further reading
[2] A.P. Moller – Maersk – Maersk and IBM to discontinue TradeLens
[3] Forbes – Blockchain in the Supply Chain: Too Much Hype
[4] G2 – Blockchain as a Service Providers
[5] CargoX – Platform for Transport and Logistics
[6] CargoX – Electronic Bill of Lading Software
[7] Gartner – Half of SCM solutions will include agentic AI capabilities by 2030
[8] Gartner – 60% of supply chain digital adoption efforts may fail by 2028
[9] BIFA – Growth and transformation in freight forwarding and logistics