decentralization of X does not and cannot exist without decentralized funding of X.
this is why there is simply no way to separate blockchain (as an implementation of decentralized X) from tradeable cryptocurrency derived from units of X.
this is not in any way a defense or support for cryptocurrency, only that it is nonsense to claim decentralization of function can exist independently from decentralization of funding. that cryptocurrency is designed to explicitly realize this principle doesn't excuse its failure to do so.
decentralization of X does not and cannot exist without decentralized funding of X.
An essential observation. It's easy to design some kind of decentralized utopia but the future can't run on a trickle of Patreon donations. Decentralized business models that don't rely on pump-and-dumps are very thin on the ground.
I wonder if we'll run out of volunteer Mastodon sysadmins at some point.
I generally agree with him, although there are exceptions. You can't generally replace the functionality that centralized servers provide without some sort of mechanic to compensate and incentivize the decentralized nodes themselves. If you relied on VISA or Paypal and charged a fee for the service in that sense, well you now have to stand up an organization that gets to straddle the network and effectively control it. And now that organization has a legal surface area, as well as an administrative surface area that is attackable and can compromise the network itself.
this is why there is simply no way to separate blockchain (as an implementation of decentralized X) from tradeable cryptocurrency derived from units of X.
this is not in any way a defense or support for cryptocurrency, only that it is nonsense to claim decentralization of function can exist independently from decentralization of funding. that cryptocurrency is designed to explicitly realize this principle doesn't excuse its failure to do so.