The challenge: 
How variants of permissionless or permissioned, among other blockchain structures, set parameters of growth of a network locally or globally, for a micro or macro setup.

When we look into blockchain adoption, we need to refer to its different variants to understand the impact it has in the conglomerate it plays a roll of, with pro’s and con’s in the micro and macro perspectives. All doing or omitting efforts around the governance of its applications.

Wether it needs prior approval before using it (a permissioned blockchain), or let anyone to participate in the system (a permissionless blockchain); or we refer to open/public, or closed/private environment solutions, like the adoption of blockchain application within companies like Walmart or Home Depot: we need to implement ways to frame qualitative and quantitatively its output to the users and its organization/company/conglomerate.

For example: in the case of permissioned blockchains, we can find a cryptocurrency, but would you want to have it with limitations in the form of permissions, when cryptocurrencies aim to stand for total freedom? How do we work towards achieving some sort of integrity within its system? 

Thats when cases of study for different applications, plus finding balance between the micro and macro benefits, contradictions, and strengths are required for its sustainable growth.​

These is more required within public blockchains: what they gain in traceable transparency of its transactions, is missed in market “manipulation”. As fungible tokens today have been made popular because most use it to resemble the currency market. With benefits of a system that works 24/7 with no intermediaries, faces core issues, like the amount of variables accounted for changing the token’s value, and how many entities/parties have to move accordingly to do so, changing its value just based on demand.