Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think my understanding of the "blockchain" clicked when I heard the phrase, "you can't have blockchain without Bitcoin." Am I correct in asserting that you can't have the desirable properties of immutability, censorship resistance, security, neutrality, etc without the proper incentive mechanisms? As I understand it, the security of "blockchains" comes from distributed users across the network who participate by virtue of self-benefiting motives. Can it be said that without the self-incentivised motives, there is no valuable blockchain?
As in, if you change any of the ingredients: cryptography + protocols + Free and Open Source Software + PoW + economics (incentives/game theory), you get something different from Bitcoin. Does each and every variation of blockchain become useless when you take economic incentives out?
If so, why do I hear people talking about using blockchain for supply-chain management or improving transparency in government spending? What incentive mechanism are there to keep the ledger distributed? Will a soft, non-economic incentive such as, "I want to enforce my government to spend responsibly, therefore I'll spin up the government ledger node/miner" work?
Then I see promising projects like Democracy.Earth who are trying to figure out liquid democracy. Will reputation and social systems like Proof of Identity and Attention Mining as described by their whitepaper work without hard economic motives?
Will appreciate the discussion, thanks in advance.