I think of "users don't care about decentralization" as being similar to "consumers don't care about what's in their food"

cto @ bwl.gg, 100M+ users (bdut.ch) 🙏 $eggs is life

I mostly don’t eat meat. But I think any number of metrics would demonstrate that over the last 30 years, a larger and larger share of people have begun to appreciate the consequences of their diets and make more intentional choices.

but.... evidently they don't?

like, you eat meat, right?

that's a proven way to increase cancer chances

and you still eat meat

because you don't care?

Researcher
Co-author of EIP-7212 
Ex- @getclave

personally I think the term "decentralization" confuses as often as it helps because people define it very differently - sometimes it is a stand-in for a specific objective ("capture resistant" or "permissionless"), other times it is a description of a design pattern that tries to achieve those objectives, etc.

The market here is "payments" not "chains". People choosing to use Tron (instead of trad payment rails) shows they do value some of the immediate benefits of "decentralization" (e.g. open global access). Other benefits of decentralization (e.g. resistance to capture) take time to show their worth.

I really want to understand your point 

If users care about decentralization why Tron become the #1 chain in payments?

I have no answer for it

former value investor turned ethereum janitor 🧹

i suppose on the face of it both are similarly first world problems

Used to build @kiwi | https://macbudkowski.com/

Companies buying phones for their employees care about privacy.

Signal has 40M active users, Telegram has 700M monthly active users, so consumers probably care as well.

The key thing about Apple is that they, for a time period, heavily positioned themselves as having better privacy offerings than BlackBerry, which was the apparent pinnacle of privacy in consumer mobile at the time.

Users didn’t understand or care for privacy but they cared for a guarantee better than BlackBerry.

15 years ago, users didn't care about privacy. Now it's the main Apple selling point.

I predict the same will happen with decentralization.

Interesting. I think that:

1. Decentralization and its benefits are too abstract for many
2. Its lower on the priority of what users care about esp compared to easy of use and cost for example (due to point 1 imo) — similar to how consumers choose food, not many people actually care about whats in chips & cola

Happy to report that users of MetaMask swaps are safe from the current Socket Gateway hack. We'll probably be writing a bit more soon about how our architecture allowed us to integrate Socket without being vulnerable to it.

And then when the failure happens, what's the correct play? Nobody likes someone saying "told ya so", or dancing on graves, and so it's up to users to suffer losses, look around, and conclude for themselves what safety they'd like for the next go around.

Just hope they notice?

co founder of @metamask . Making computers behave for us.

And then when the failure happens, what's the correct play? Nobody likes someone saying "told ya so", or dancing on graves, and so it's up to users to suffer losses, look around, and conclude for themselves what safety they'd like for the next go around.

Just hope they notice? https://warpcast.com/danfinlay/0x972de213

Most kinds of virtue are like this: Invisible except when revealed to be absent via a flaw. You never know a bridge is safe for sure, you only know when it *wasn't* safe.

This is also a moloch problem: Projects that compromise will be able to ship shiny things that attract users.

BDFL of Quilibrium, Eng @ Farcaster, ex-Coinbase, always opinionated, never hydrated

/quilibrium

I liken decentralization, privacy, encryption to all be like the same logic given to "a good guy with a gun" – you may not care about them being there, but you will when it's necessary.

building /camp (nouns.camp) and nounsgrants.com

i dont really care about whats in my food tbf

that's a good analogy because it's both true and false

both are on a spectrum, and largely informed by the persons' media consumption habits

yes but being able to “wait” until users start caring is a luxury most products can’t afford

Like most things in life, it depends. Who is this “user”? Are you talking about a protocol developer? Then yes they do care. Are you talking about granny? Maybe not so much. We need to design our solutions to the right audience there’s no blanket statement shortcut. Same with privacy.

Live in Colorado; TechnoGeek; Proud mother of a fey creature in the form of a cat; part time vegan, part time meat connoisseur; walker of edges.

Coca Cola is best selling pop in America. Ingredients:

CARBONATED WATER, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CARAMEL COLOR, PHOSPHORIC ACID, NATURAL FLAVORS, CAFFEINE.

Majority of people are quite willing to eat and drink things with long lists of chemicals they don’t know what are, or high fructose corn syrup, no matter what health warnings say.

I admit being a bit shocked seeing so many thinkers around here abandoning decentralization. Each time we do this crypto loses a bit more of change power.

I see it as one of those things that people know are good in principle but ignore in practice. Like people "care" about cybersecurity but will use the same password on everything and never change it. People "care" about privacy, but give it away to Facebook and TikTok for convenience or entertainment.

I think it’s more like “consumers don’t care about how well-engineered their bridges are.”

Counter point: it's more like "consumers don't care how their food is sourced". Most actually don't, hence the unsustainable farming practices