It is old fashion thinking though. People are used to some genius founders and killer apps, and give their trust to them. But the traditional system is all about making as much money as possible, and participants end up being used and abused. lol.
Web3 approach is ownership. I don't think Hive will end up as a niche corner of the internet. It has a lot to offer for people. Question is how will they realize this potential.
I do understand your point. It is not easy to see masses to turn to decentralized solutions when centralized ones are easier to use and understand.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I would disagree with you, where do you think most of the growth of social media apps comes form these days? Developing countries like my own where we are far removed from who the founders are nor care, the only thing the user cares about is low barrier access to the network
Web3 is oversold as an idea, to have ownership, you need to be running your own node, otherwise you're just trusting a 3rd party and on the flip side of that NO one cares about ownership of their data, if they did we would haven't set up the internet the way we do. Web 3 is a narrative looking for a problem to fix, but can't offer a viable solution
As for realising the potential if a product is good enough you don't need to market it, did whatsapp ever have to advertise in 3rd world countries? No, its a good product and it went viral
The process of building apps or platforms for eventual profit purposes is done easier the traditional way in a centralized fashion seeking funding from private investors. This give decent amount of funds to support development and provide high quality product. There is no doubt about it. But in the end these product do not necessarily serve the interests of people who use them. Hence, they are just users.
Even the example you showed proves this. Yes, whatsapp was successful and what happened to it? Was bought by a bigger company. Developers of the app clearly had skills but also financial motivations. When it was time to make money, they didn't care about their userbase. They sold their users to FB without thinking twice about it. lol.
FB didn't pay a lot of money for some app or a platform. They paid the money for its users. This keeps happening over and over. Recently Coinbase bought BRD wallet. Not BRD wallet can't be used, its users need to migrate to Coinbase wallet. I doubt Coinbase wanted the BRD technology, but rather its users.
It is matter of time for people to realize that their are bing used as products, and when they find alternative solutions that let them do all the things they do elsewhere but as owners, that's when masses will turn to solutions like Hive.
It will be a slow process, because you can't just build apps on Hive and in the end sell your users to a bigger companies for a lot of money. Because Hive people are owners of their accounts. That's why financial motivations for building apps are lower than doing the same thing by seeking funding from VCs.
I would compare it to open source movement, where people just come together in building something because it is a good idea, and not necessarily to make profits.
You're making way too many contradictions here
Someone wanted to expand the value of the network with Justin sun through the acquisition of STEEM, but HIVE forked which is a dilutive action. Whenever you split a userbase you render yourself a niche application. Here's an example Bumble is a fork of Tinder, Tinder chose acquisition by MTCH companies and has more users and a 7x the market cap, Bumble has lost 75% of its value and still has a PE ratio of 13, its failing instead of remaining in the MTCH ecosystem.
The only reason HIVE has seen any growth, is Splinterlands, so does Splinterlands not care about their users, because they raised capital
To think that crypto is not about launching and be acquired by bigger companies because decentralised is niave. The days of someone spinning up an app or network on his home computer ended with satoshi, all applications in crypto come from VC money. You think Dan Lirmar pulled BTS, STEEM and EOS working at Mcdonalds? No he raised capital.
All crypto are loss-leading networks, looking to scale and then acquired, A16z, Cummberline Jump Crypto, Coinbase and Binance own half the shit you use through back hand deals
You are not realizing that your arguments prove the main point of the post. Everything you are saying is true in overall crypto world, and that is the problem. Hive is a solution, or at least an alternative. It offers clear path for decentralization, while everybody else is still trying to centralize things.
I am really bad at convincing anybody about anything. So I wouldn't even try convince you or anybody else. But doesn't mean we can't have a conversation.
The main point of the post is decentralization and why it is important. If people are fine with traditional ways of doing things, that's fine. It is their choice. Decentralized solutions like Bitcoin and Hive offer an alternative way, that some may find more interesting and beneficial.
Yes, Hive top witnesses make up the consensus on which code to run, what changes to implement, etc. It is 20+1, not 30. But since it is DPoS protocol, any of these top witnesses can be replaced by backup witness at anytime if the stakeholders decide so. In other words 21 witnesses do no make up the decentralization of Hive, it is the ability of stakeholders to appoint or replace any witnesses as they choose. Most of the time stakeholders would prefer to protect their interests and interests of the blockchain and vote in relying and skillful candidates. If any of the witnesses for some reason go rouge and do something that may harm the chain, it is up to the stakeholders to act promptly and replace the witness with their votes.
In a decentralized system like Hive, I have the full ownership of my account and wallet. Nobody else but I have full control over the account. Which is not the case anywhere else.
Blogging is only one of the features Hive offers. I understand not many enjoy blogging. They don't need to. They can use Hive just like any other social media apps they use. Better yet be part of building new ones.
Games like Splinterlands have demonstrated how successful building game and a gaming community can be on Hive. More and more games and apps will continue joining Hive network. For participants, the ability to use the same account/wallet to use various other games, apps, projects and build their digital equities can be beneficial too.
Maybe we should stop thinking about Hive as a product, but rather a network that puts people in charge. Decentralization is not easy. Perhaps it is easier to just use ready products that companies offer. But it is good to have options.