It's hard to explain the risks of centralization to people who haven't gone through what we did with the takeover of the former chain and be taken seriously. Many will think we are paranoid when we keep pushing for a decentralized layer-one chain (at least). Until it happens to them. @jongolson explained well how he didn't trust people who told him Paypal was closing down accounts for no reason (thought they must've done something) until it happened to him and his business.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yep, jongo's Paypal story on the Cryptomaniacs pod was a great example that even normies can understand!
Let me just reiterate that I'm not against centralisation per se.
Centralised and decentralised networks can and always will coexist, affording users the advantages that both parallels offer.
Heck, one of centralisation's biggest advantages was shown here.
I mean I'm certainly not cheering for hackers - It's a good thing that this clown didn't get all of the money out.
Suck shit.
But my issue is that we don't know where CZ's line for centralised intervention get drawn.
And the fact that CZ gets to draw that line at all!
If you've got money tied up in the BNB Smart Chain ecosystem, you need to be aware of what could happen.
And if these risks concern you, then your search for a decentralised alternative will likely lead you to Hive.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I am not either. It is what most apps will be and many of the layer twos. Base layers should be light and decentralized though if censorship and control are concerns, and they are (or should be), at the societal level, but not in the corporate or government world.