Did decentralization hit a plateau?

Submitted by quaintSloe t3_109wj91 in Futurology

So at the beginning of the decentralized craze we heard a ton about its potential utility and how it can be applied to all sectors with very few exceptions. We got a lot of things out of it, from financial tools to games and stuff, but that’s where it kind of fell off. Now that there isn’t the same hype surrounding the topic, I’m curious if I’ve missed any unique decentralized applications. I know about decentralized games (a lot of those happened to be scams), finance , and storage, but what other unique applications are there? Is that all we have to show for the innovation or is there something actually new offered by decentralized technology?

42

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

birdlives_ma t1_j4191na wrote

I'd argue that it didn't hit a plateau so much as it... never actually happened. I've yet to find a "decentralized" app/NFT/database/anything, that doesn't rely on centralized infrastructure like AWS or Piñata.

There would totally be utility and societal benefits to decentralizing digital infrastructure. But there's no money in doing so, and no incentive for the companies that own the centralized infrastructure to allow it to happen. Failing that, it's just an advertising buzzword.

78

dwkdnvr t1_j41zg3f wrote

Exactly - a properly conceived decentralized system is basically impossible to monetize, and so there is very little to no incentive for any company with R&D $$$ available to explore it.

There will certainly be continued academic research, but how you grow a user community large enough to be useful is a bit of a question when

a) there's no money in it

b) you have to assume everyone is a bad actor and will attempt to exploit/co-opt the system wherever possible

22

PompiPompi t1_j43adcx wrote

When you assume the worst case scenario, your algorithm will get the worst performance.

1

BardicSense t1_j45ptis wrote

Why not assume the best in people until empirical evidence provides you with no room for benefits of the doubt? After all, if human nature is ultimately mostly corrupt, as your assumption might suggest, then it matters little what good your decentralized system might try to do if it will ultimately be corrupted and exploited.

Instead you should give people lots of leeway and benefits of the doubt, and if you detect certain rhetoric that is based on a well established pattern of misinformation campaigns or some type of nefarious propaganda, then you eliminate the user's access or whatever, but it seems like being a control freak about the whole thing is the opposite intention of what decentralization was supposed to be.

−1

regalAugur t1_j46dj96 wrote

we've already seen how people interact on the internet

2

BardicSense t1_j46llvg wrote

Yeah but different platforms with different rules encourage different types of interaction. People act differently on different sites. Theres a lot of effort going into designing ways to encourage prosocial behavior through "nudging" and various other psychological tricks. I dont believe that the perfect algorithm or website design exists that would make everyone suddenly wonderful and excellent to each other, but curbing people from having total meltdowns, making rage filled rants, or stalking/harrassing people, would be a good thing.

The point is humanity is still in its early infancy with its use of internet technology. 1991 is when it went public, and the species might need some time to adjust properly to this new capacity for communication. We dont know for sure that it has to end in a corporate sponsored dumpster fire every time. I think theres hope for improvement.

1

Lord0fHats t1_j43i02d wrote

Anyone who knows how the internet works looks at a lot of the lofty promises decentralization proposes and says 'that's just the internet we already have with extra steps you want me to pay for so we can pretend we've reinvented something.'

It always goes right back to infrastructure and infrastructure isn't just expensive, it's centralized. Decentralization was an illusion promised by people who either didn't know how things worked, or wanted your money and were willing to bend the truth hard.

15

crua9 t1_j44wlaq wrote

>Decentralization was an illusion promised by people who either didn't know how things worked, or wanted your money and were willing to bend the truth hard.

IDK AI and software can run a company and take out loans without a human outside of DeFI and DAO.....

1

quaintSloe OP t1_j41spm3 wrote

But in all honesty, there are some things that can improve things. Over the past two years, each data leak is breaking new records. There has to be a time when these centralized institutions just find decentralization as the less of two evils at least.

Buzz words definitely hindered its development, though. I throw up a little everytime I hear crypto buzzwords

3

pab_guy t1_j42g1c5 wrote

How does creating a public ledger solve for data leaks?

10

Xist3nce t1_j44a8az wrote

The “Buzzwords” are happening for a reason. When the face of your tech is 99% scams because there’s no profit in it besides scams, you’re going to have a bad look. Pretending that it’s not the case lumps you in with them. Way I see it, propose an actual use that isn’t just a scam, proof of concept, then figure out how companies can exploit it for cash. Then you get widespread adoption.

4

crua9 t1_j44xm8l wrote

IDK if it will help with leaks. Like I don't see how.

But there is things like DAO that are already a thing, but is being worked on. These are companies that are ran by software. Like there is no manager or CEO. Most are more a hobby thing, but some are legit companies. Then you have DeFi where you can get a loan. In fact, anyone can or anything can including software/AI. Where this is currently impossible with the normal system.

​

Like there is serious plus sides to it. It's just really early on. Like one of the thoughts is the gov is working one a CBDC which includes a decentralized system. Your ID will be tied to it, and there is pros and cons to that. But one of the neat things is since the gov and given groups are the only ones access to the ledger. And the groups you can control what they see. It is possible to store medical records on it. Meaning the day of someone going doctor to doctor to get drugs to get high is over. Plus, your medical record will show up in real time instead of a hospital having to pull some request which can take days or weeks.

0

quick_dudley t1_j435e6a wrote

I have actually been using a decentralised social network called Scuttlebutt. Unfortunately getting started with it is a bit more complex than the centralised versions but after the initial hurdle it's pretty pleasant.

2

mrpoops t1_j450ymb wrote

Just read up on it, link is here:

https://scuttlebutt.nz/get-started/

The setup process means it’s DOA. You have to let it sync for an hour before you can use it? Good lord…I feel like iOS won’t even let me download something in the background for an hour, you’d have to adjust your screen lock and stuff.

Also…how much space is it using on your phone? That shit ain’t cheap.

2

ah-tzib-of-alaska t1_j44l7vi wrote

the real nft boom will be boring. Just like .com's are way more prevalent now than in the .com bubble and burst, but less valuable without all the crazy speculation. Just like Holland has more Tulips now then back during the craze.

2

cosmic_backlash t1_j44uwo1 wrote

There's also a LOT of reasons not to have decentralization. There are tradeoffs and people were sold a shitty dream.

2

Nwcray t1_j4647hm wrote

Web 1.0 was pretty decentralized.

I mean - everyone used Internet Explorer as their browser, but my point is that there really wasn’t the same big corporate feel to the web.

We had it, we liked it, and in the name of progress we lost it.

2

crua9 t1_j44wfth wrote

>I've yet to find a "decentralized" app/NFT/database/anything, that doesn't rely on centralized infrastructure like AWS or Piñata.

IPFS. It's basically a decentralized file storage and web hosting service.

Curve DeFI, where you or even AI can get loans.

There is a number of other things. Much of it you kind of need to be in the know to get to it because it is complicated at this time.

1

Sethdarkus t1_j45hba9 wrote

Wait till Flexa comes out with their rail systems it would move money far faster abs far cheaper than any bank could with zero risk of being out money

1

jdbrew t1_j45shxu wrote

There’s decentralized social media with Mastodon, and the decentralized aspect is it’s main hindrance to hitting critical mass in a time where everyone was eager to find a different social media platform

1

micktalian t1_j41g06u wrote

Honestly, it was all always intended as a means of scamming people. The "decentralized" systems people were advocating were, in fact, highly centralized, just not in the same way. When you really start dogging through Web3.0, you realize that there is nothing unique or groundbreaking that it does AND it is significantly less energy efficient in a time when we should be maximizing efficiencies.

12

quaintSloe OP t1_j41uc5h wrote

I mean, the majority of the industry has moved over to PoS, so that addresses efficiency. As for them being centralized, I agree to a certain extent. Look at mining for example, it was never decentralized. One company holds a pool and people join it. Profits are given to you by the pool, it's all backwards tbh

8

crua9 t1_j44xq9b wrote

>When you really start dogging through Web3.0, you realize that there is nothing unique or groundbreaking

It solves link rot

1

James-Logan2--_ t1_j40o7oa wrote

There is more to decentralized technology than just finance. For example, you’re failing to consider communication protocols (like Ylide, which allows you to create your own DeComm protocol). Also another good one is decentralized name services, which allow you to register a domain on the blockchain. You’re right about one thing, a lot of the hype has died out, which perfectly explains why you haven’t heard much about these solutions. People are just not talking about crypto as much, so you won’t be hearing about these in bear markets. But you know what they say about these market conditions, they filter out the bad projects, while proper teams are going to be focusing on developing their platforms even further.

10

The_Mann_In_Black t1_j41s4cz wrote

It’s interesting that the term decentralized is being primarily applied (in this discussion) to finance and the internet/communication.

I think the strongest decentralization is coming in food production and energy. Solar panels and wind allow if decentralized production. Greenhouses increase the availability and quality of food for millions of people. 3D printing, while still limited in application, allows for spare parts to be made closer to where they are used.

Centralization creates the potential for massive failure in these industries, with truly catastrophic results. Whereas in finance, the value of centralization is pretty massive and when it does fail it doesn’t directly result in death.

5

quaintSloe OP t1_j41syns wrote

I know what you mean, but that is a different decentralization that we also very much DO need. I'm more approaching the aspect of the internet, no DeFi, that's something that purely applies to cryptographic currency. I'm more leaning towards its utility that was promised

0

The_Mann_In_Black t1_j41tkhh wrote

The US has strong institutions and gains a lot of value from centralization, which is why adoption hasn’t really gone anywhere.

You’re more likely to see adoption in countries with weaker, less trustworthy, or lack of institutions like Brazil. Your average American has no strong incentive to adopt crypto currency or blockchain technology in their daily life.

I would suggest looking into adoption of coins and crypto in Brazilian agriculture.

4

quaintSloe OP t1_j40vzgz wrote

Sounds cool! In all honesty, though, I do wanna see decentralized storage, just like remihoh

2

vgf89 t1_j44ljki wrote

Hell, even Mastodon is doing pretty well these days given Twitter's awkward struggle. It's decentralized in that anyone can run a server, but also a server is allowed to break connection with any other server they see as problematic which is great for protecting your instance's users from bullshit. At the same time, users can move from one instance to another (and their followers remain in-tact) without too much hassle. It's a surprisingly elegant design for a social network.

1

CTDKZOO t1_j417bem wrote

We are still figuring it out. We've just scratched the surface of what decentralization might offer and exited the first hype phase. It'll happen again.

Think of it as a third wave of Internet tech for consumers (because it is... web3) and then connect that thought back to 1995 and what the Internet was like when most people first heard about it.

Who could have predicted that we'd have what we have today? It took a lot of trial, error, and money.

Decentralization will too. That's why a lot of it has been garbage, but not all of it. The first pioneers are at it up on the plateau. There's more mountain to climb to keep with your metaphor.

Write yourself a letter with all of your thoughts about decentralization and then read it in 2030. You'll be surprised. Human innovation is truly amazing but feels slow in the moment.

7

quaintSloe OP t1_j41tarf wrote

But crypto is 12 (approaching 13 years old). Are you old enough to remember what the internet looked like after 13 years? It was pretty developed and you could do things on it that were never possible. If you wanted to check the weather, you didn't need the weather channel anymore. If you wanted to send a message, you could IM instead of SMS, and so on. What about "WEB3"? It cannot replace the internet anytime soon, even though you hear that too often now

3

CTDKZOO t1_j427szm wrote

>Are you old enough to remember what the internet looked like after 13 years?

I first logged on to the Internet in October of 1990 in my universities computer lab on a VAX mainframe-based network.

I did so to play a game that the computer club was hosting.

You cite nice examples, but it's cherry-picking at the up-close level.

All I'm trying to say is that this technology will have utilization and benefits that we can't yet imagine, and once we have them they'll feel as common as checking the weather online is.

Edited for an additional point of reference that is very important: The official birthday of the Internet is January 1st, 1983.

Your 13-year projections would be to reference the very early public internet and AOL world of 1996. The jump in tech is astounding in that context.

2

remihoh t1_j40tigd wrote

i would love for decentralized storage and computational processing to come to fruition. i personally don’t trust big tech’s centralized cloud services in terms of privacy (or price for that matter). will take time, though

6

quaintSloe OP t1_j40ud5y wrote

Me too. Especially with all the data leaks we've been hearing about non-stop! It feels like every other week we get "the largest data leak", and more keep on one-upping the previous ones

2

TheAero1221 t1_j41euto wrote

I generally trust big companies not to alter or destroy my stored items though. Sure, they're peeking in the filing cabinet, but I feel a bit more at ease knowing it's probably just them gathering metrics and trying to sell me ads. Annoying, but predictable and relatively secure. Idk if I'd be able to quickly trust some decentralized options.

1

quaintSloe OP t1_j41tfkr wrote

But to look through your personal private messages to serve you ads? I honestly think that is way too out of line

2

TheAero1221 t1_j436u49 wrote

They already basically do this if I had to guess. Maybe not directly, but in plausibly deniable grey-area ways.

1

Bright_Development22 t1_j43y5sd wrote

I've recently been looking into this and IPFS appears to be a legit decentralized potential solution here... it's no where near the ease of use as current centralized services though.

1

sambull t1_j41pn8d wrote

centralization provides asymmetry to access which is necessary to create demand for growth. The distributor always wants to distribute

6

quaintSloe OP t1_j41ufhi wrote

But it also gives institutions more power, to do whatever they please with your data and information. It's a FFA

4

Thebadmamajama t1_j41pbd4 wrote

Yes. To me there's two waves that hit a wall.

  1. p2p protocols. At the height of the file sharing craze, there was a real sense that we could leverage the internet as a big hive mind. Media companies freaked out a sued with every toll they could, which pushed all the innovation to the cloud where centralized policies were pitched as easier. So we've been pulled in the direction of cloud since then, but at least have a lot of comp sci on how to build world scale p2p networks.

2). Blockchain, which is dominated by really inefficient distributed protocols, but it focused on how to prevent tampering in a distributed environment. That's huge, because in the first wave, there was no solid way to prevent poisoning the network with bad data (also a tactic media companies used). But, this wave has hit a wall because the tech has been used predominantly for classic scams, with people losing billions of dollars world wide. The hasn't played out, but there's a real risk regulation comes in because we can have a shadow finance system that can tank the economy. And I suspect it's going to encourage centralization all over again.

A different thought exercise is what happens after this. Communication and trust are somewhat solved, but there are properties of a centralized system we keep getting yanked back to. That gap is the next wave of innovation imo

5

crua9 t1_j419y18 wrote

Not really. There is development and hype cycles. You just seen a hype cycle.

​

The same is happening in AI. Like ChatGPT coming out created a hype cycle, but because there really is nothing new to show after a bit other than neat things it can do. The hype will die and it goes back in development cycle as all the other companies and so on develop their own AI.

​

As someone who tries to stay in the mix with Web3 and this stuff I can tell you there is a TON of work being done. One thing that is being done is there is talks with social media places to link up with decentralized systems to better identify a given person. Moreso, unstoppable domains (a web3 domain place) is talking to a number of places with using your web3 domain to log into given sites like Twitter and so on. So when you talk to someone, you know exactly the person you talking to is legit or the same person with the same username in other places.

3

quaintSloe OP t1_j41u0qd wrote

I actually did some more searching and found something called DeNS (decentralized name service). I can say that you're right. But why does it feel like the technology is DOA? Why isn't it seeing mass adoption? Why is the community more concerned about money than the greater good of the internet?

1

crua9 t1_j41zc6e wrote

>But why does it feel like the technology is DOA? Why isn't it seeing mass adoption?

It's because you didn't live or know what happen in the early early days of the internet.

A good few months back a lawyer on the hill. He stated that when he was getting started the prosecution office he was with would not use email. Simply because they didn't trust it and didn't think it was going to go anywhere.

Keep in 1983 is considered the official birthday of the Internet. The technology and stuff is so new that we're talking about, if I had to compare it it would be compared to the early 80s. We already have some web hosting in the web free space. Look up ipfs. But it's very crude.

More than less you're more likely familiar with mid to late stage technology. And this is an early early stage. Basically the technology to build the technology which builds what you want is just starting to be made.

>Why is the community more concerned about money than the greater good of the internet?

It has always been like this. Even with normal internet. Look at those who bought a ton of domains before the dot com boom. And look at how things are now.

The average person also will not care about the technology. And to be blunt to the average person will not persuade the technology one way or the other. The average person is more than less about making as much money as possible. This has more to deal with social and economic problems then anything else in my opinion. Like they can't afford to learn about the technology and they don't have the mindset to learn because they are trying to survive.

(UPDATE: Sorry for the typo. I was using my speech to text on my phone when I wrote this)

2

vuxanov t1_j42t6bl wrote

I have sad news for you, none of this was ever true. It was all just one giant scam.

3

RanCestor t1_j40pvgh wrote

Decentralization has transformed into a hot potato involving current warfare... It's almost like the french revolution all over again.

2

quaintSloe OP t1_j40vw0s wrote

I know what you mean. But I still believe in the technology's ability to develop. Maybe it needs more funding?

1

RanCestor t1_j42lr30 wrote

Me too but politics is suppressing technological development right now and economy is in the middle.

1

MuForceShoelace t1_j41piaw wrote

The 'craze' was just bitcoin people lying about a use case to make you buy their thing.

2

quaintSloe OP t1_j41uht2 wrote

And the good protocols get to sit in the shadow contemplating what went wrong...

2

Dizzyeer t1_j41yjgv wrote

It was all a Ponzi scheme by billionaires to dupe you into making them money

2

pab_guy t1_j42gc6l wrote

Very few use cases. Authorities are useful, and trust is required for business interop regardless. Just because info hits the blockchain, that doesn't mean it's accurate.

So much of the promise here was sold by charlatans exploiting people's lack of knowledge re: crypto and the fact that people don't like to look stupid, so they pretend to understand and perpetuate the cycle of stupidity.

2

third0burns t1_j42iwm4 wrote

From the perspective of an average person it feels like a solution in search of a problem. Like outside of libertarians and people who are seriously into the tech, you never see regular people saying "you know, I could use less centralization in my life." Maybe crypto caught their attention for a while, but managing your own wallet is somewhat hard to understand, so they just went to re-centralized platforms like FTX.

And without widespread buy in from the public, companies have no reason to get into it. As others have said, it's hard to monetize a truly decentralized system. So the question is, who is actually asking for more decentralization? At the moment, I think the answer is almost no one.

2

NefariousNaz t1_j42r6q6 wrote

There is value in removing the need of a centralized authority to confirm transactions. There's a lot of downside to it too.

Regarding games, problem is game companies want control over their game assets, so they're uninterested. Interested parties tend to put as little investment into the game as they can get away with so that they can maximize their profits from scamming or rug-pulling the community. Game development would have to rely on community driven efforts focused on enriching the entire environment.

2

danishruyu1 t1_j43bdod wrote

Not much to add to the discussion but I always found it funny that people would buy decentralized currency only to have it stored in a centralized exchange like… well yknow…

2

jnan77 t1_j44w85k wrote

It was cool when it was just called Napster and you got free music.

2

Ok_Letter_9284 t1_j41ca48 wrote

Decentralize Congress

(This one’s mine. I got the idea from bitcoin and harry potter. Don’t ask. My mind is weird.)

That is, whenever a session is about to convene, members are chosen AT RANDOM from a large pool of qualified citizens (I’ll address quals in the next paragraph). Like jury duty. The sessions are held remotely and the citizen is excused from work and paid well.

Qualifications vary based on the substance of the meetings and participation is entirely VOLUNTARY. Most matters on general affairs will require the equivalent of a HS Diploma, but if the substance is more complex, higher quals are required. These are decided by examination. For example, if the session is on climate change, you need to have passed the sciences portion of the exam to qualify.

This is MORE representative than voting. Consider, you could abstain from voting the rest of your life and not a SINGLE election would change outcomes. Here, you have a real voice, but we don’t have Joe Blow making laws about economics.

Think about it. No more money in politics. No more career politicians. No bribery. And no ppl who can’t pass a science exam making medical decisions.

Lastly, this only applies to Congress and possibly state senate.

1

llhht t1_j42199v wrote

Decentralizing is/was just the new market buzzword for market disruption based companies and startups that were the hotness to investors prior.

Being better is never the goal, other than as a pipedream to sell to suckers investors. All they're after is removing market control by an existing company and replacing that company with themselves.

1

sirzoop t1_j42uw5x wrote

People realize it's only purpose was to enable laundering money

1

Frowdo t1_j43hwks wrote

At this point Web 3.0 and a lot of this talk is almost a dirty word. Project after project has just been doing existing technologies in just much worse ways and relied on ignoring the human element.

1

Bright_Development22 t1_j43yrfs wrote

As far as I can tell IPFS is decentralized(?) It isn't reliant on any one centralized service and all devices run without reliance on others... still learning more about it though. Storage and communication is one area where I would be happy for decentralize application wins.

1

AlotaFajita t1_j44gujy wrote

Those in power don’t seem to want to give up control. Hmm

1

ah-tzib-of-alaska t1_j44l3c2 wrote

I think DHS uses an in-house blockchain for their parcel tracking; and then I realized it'd be great for franchised services like planet fitness, if my membership were simply an nft I rent then it'd make a lot of account management between locations super easy to handle.

1

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j44wgzg wrote

People forget decentralization is also very inefficient in many respects. So centralization gets added to make things more efficient.

Efficient doesn’t just mean speed, it also means cost.

Doing things distributed fast requires coordination. The easiest way to coordinate cheaply is to have something centralized to coordinate.

1