Perhaps part of the reason why people are are not enthusiastic about publicly promoting the network is, as you pointed to, that there is a concern about the stability of the system and people don't want to invite their friends to invest time that they might feel was wasted later. This is another way of saying that people maybe don't feel the benefits of decentralization as much as they need to in order to become highly enthusiastic.
Hive already has a base that can be used to create something that bypasses the mainstream media completely and still grow huge - it's not really like Ebay or even Amazon relied on mainstream media to grow big - they just focused on delivering their useful service to a high enough standard. The challenge here is that growing Hive isn't quite the same as selling books since the service is far more personal and the psychological issues and barriers are far more complicated.
that's true, we didn't need the media or even advertising to make amazon what it is.. they just had an amazing service, at competitive prices, and they sell pretty much everything so it's a simple one stop for all situation... very compelling..
I was thinking about it some more after reading a post i wrote a while back, called 'Hive is perfectly perfect just as it is'.. It started me thinking that IF Hive were to become a huge popular system that everyone used, it would by its very nature be centralised. regardless of the nature of the system itself. TOo big means too many problems, its just unavoidable from what ive seen..
Two years ago i implemented some great code (www.una.io) for a small local social network system for my local community.. back then i felt that the only sensible and decentralised way to have any social network would be to have many small ones.. each tailored to the people who used it, and the culture, and location.. That to me is what decentralisation is all about.. it has become clear to me that whenever we have a system that EVERYONE uses, it becomes a problem and those problems are unavoidable.. too big, almost by definition, means centralised in a way, no matter what the system is like or how it works.
Maybe that is why Hive is just perfect as it is..
I copy a short quote from that post as It sums up well my feelings on this. Food for thought perhaps!
The massive networks at this point are not open source, so we are comparing apples and oranges by comparing them to Hive. As long as a network is open source and can be forked by anyone, it can only become as centralized as the community allows it to become. This is quite different to a system like Facebook, where there is no way to decentralize it, no matter how large it is.
Layer 2 projects on Hive have the capacity to deliver decentralization of every kind to niche communities, while still benefiting from the underlying Hive DNA.
Yes i fully agree with that.. lets not even attempt to compare us with fb omg! I think my sentiment here is the bigger things get the more problematic it becomes.. even just relating to something as soft fork gets progressively more scary as it threatens to bring down the whole system.. we had it happen once and steem went down for a whole week if i remeber correctly… thankfully we didnt have splinterlands or i think any layer 2 tokens operating then..