Hook
TradeLens was supposed to revolutionize shipping. IBM and Maersk poured millions into a permissioned blockchain that would track containers, automate payments, and crush inefficiencies. It shuttered in 2023 after failing to achieve network effects. Now, three years later, Volvo Group announces it is “exploring” blockchain and a proprietary cryptocurrency for supplier payments. The press release contains zero technical details, zero economic models, and zero timelines. History does not repeat, but it certainly echoes. The real question isn’t whether Volvo can build a blockchain—it’s whether they can avoid the same dead ends that buried every enterprise blockchain before them.
Context
Volvo Group, the Swedish manufacturing giant behind trucks, buses, and construction equipment, issued a short statement in early 2025 indicating an interest in using distributed ledger technology to optimize its supply chain. The most striking claim: they are considering the issuance of a proprietary cryptocurrency to pay suppliers. The news was picked up by Crypto Briefing, a crypto-native outlet, but the article itself is a handful of paragraphs—more of a signal than a plan. No mention of consensus algorithm, token standard, governance model, or regulatory strategy. This is not a whitepaper. It is a corporate exploration notice, a common first step that often leads nowhere.
Core
Let me dissect what we actually know versus what is missing. Known: Volvo is exploring blockchain. Known: they want a proprietary cryptocurrency for supplier payments. That is the entirety of the factual payload. Everything else is noise.
The first red flag is the word “proprietary.” In blockchain terms, this almost certainly means a permissioned ledger controlled by Volvo or a small consortium of trusted nodes. Public blockchains offer censorship resistance and trust minimization, but Volvo, like most industrial giants, values privacy and speed. The consequence is that their “cryptocurrency” will be a centralized IOU—not a decentralized asset. Suppliers will be handed a token that can only be spent within Volvo’s ecosystem, redeemable only at Volvo’s discretion, and subject to Volvo’s internal ledger rules. This is not a revolution; it is a glorified digital voucher system with blockchain window dressing.
From my experience auditing over 40 DeFi and enterprise protocols, the failure mode here is predictable. The token will be designed as a stable value unit, likely pegged 1:1 to a fiat currency (EUR or USD), to minimize supplier pushback. But maintaining that peg on a private chain without external arbitrage mechanisms is a fool’s errand. The moment Volvo’s creditworthiness wavers, or a supplier needs immediate liquidity outside the ecosystem, the token’s value will collapse. The solution—offering direct fiat conversion at a Volvo-managed node—introduces a single point of failure indistinguishable from a traditional bank account.
Next, the regulatory trap. Volvo is headquartered in Sweden, operates in the EU, and has suppliers globally. The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation explicitly covers “asset-referenced tokens” and “e-money tokens.” If Volvo’s token is used for payments and is redeemable for fiat, it falls under MiCA’s strict licensing requirements. The SEC’s Howey test also looms: if the token gains any secondary market value or appreciation potential, it becomes a security. Volvo’s legal team will likely preemptively lock the token to prevent trading, but that defeats the purpose of a cryptocurrency. The only safe path is to keep the token strictly as a non-transferable internal accounting unit—essentially an invoice on rails.
Complexity is just laziness wearing a mask. Volvo could have achieved the same efficiency gains by implementing an automated invoicing system with smart contracts on a private database. They don’t need a token; they need inter-process communication. Introducing a proprietary cryptocurrency adds zero value and introduces exponential risk: custody, AML/KYC on every transaction, potential mispricing, and the inevitable need for a trusted third party to manage the supply.
Contrarian
Let me play the bulls’ side for a moment. Volvo has something that no crypto startup has: real supply chain volumes, existing supplier relationships, and a balance sheet that can absorb losses. If any traditional company could force adoption through sheer commercial leverage, it’s a manufacturing behemoth like Volvo. They could mandate token usage by making it the only payment method for certain orders, effectively creating captive demand. And if they choose to build on a public blockchain like Ethereum or Polygon, they could tap into decentralized finance liquidity for cross-border settlements, reducing reliance on slow SWIFT transfers.
But even in this optimistic scenario, the core assumption—that suppliers want to hold and manage a Volvo-issued token—is deeply flawed. Suppliers need cash to pay their own employees and raw material costs. A token with no external utility represents a working capital drag. Volvo would have to offer instant fiat conversion at par, which means they are simply adding an unnecessary middle layer. The only benefit is programmable settlement (e.g., automatic payment release upon goods receipt), but that can be done with traditional smart contracts on a permissioned network without a native token.
Trust is a vulnerability we audit, not a virtue. Volvo is asking suppliers to trust that their token will remain stable, that the nodes won’t be compromised, that the corporate treasury won’t freeze funds, and that the legal framework won’t shift under their feet. That is a lot of trust for a system that claims to optimize trust.
Takeaway
This announcement will evaporate into the crypto news cycle within a week, replaced by the next speculation. The only lasting impact is a rhetorical one: it feeds the narrative that traditional enterprises are “adopting” blockchain, even when they are doing nothing of substance. For Volvo, the prudent path is to quietly drop the “cryptocurrency” pretence and focus on a stripped-down blockchain solution for document verification and audit trails. The token is a distraction. Logic dissolves when code meets human greed—and in this case, the greed is not for profit, but for relevance in a narrative they don’t understand.
The bridge was never built, only imagined.