This kind of simplistic response may feel good, but it means nothing if you actually think about it.

What design is bad? The MetaMask gas price box that is front and center? EOS's lack of information about how much their contracts will cost to interact with? (which is utterly useless to talk about since the gas usage varies wildly between functions and how many times they loop) Smart contracts in general? Consider what you're saying for one second and ask yourself if it's appropriate to call any of this "bad design".

I'll acknowledge that you would have a valid point if we were talking about some kind of compulsory service, or even a service that we have explicitly paid for, but you're talking about open-source freeware made by independent, small teams that are building applications for the world to use for free and as-is.

If there was a good economic incentive to start compiling your own linux distribution, do you think it would somehow become easy over night? No, not at all. Understand that what your saying is coming from the entirely wrong perspective.

It's up to the user to understand the bare minimum of what they are doing if they don't want to accidentally make tiny mistakes and pend a few dollars more than they had to. There's no way to get away with saying it's "bad design" when somebody as ignorant as @bulleth even manages to do something like interact with a decentralized smart contract on the Ethereum network. Do you realize how abstract and high-level that concept is? The fact that this is possible at all indicates that there is some incredibly good design in place.

Crypto is not user-friendly. Whether it should be or not is irrelevant to my point here, but by no means am I trying to say something like "@bulleth should've known better, what an idiot." That would be completely asinine. However, blaming Vitalik of all people is arguably just as idiotic. It's a click-bait, hollow, sensationalist post - exactly the type Steemit users love.