[OrlandoHakim]

It is hard to advocate for the value of decentralized systems without sounding like a hand-waving conspiracy theorist.

The benefits of decentralization do come at a cost of efficiency and throughput and they are often harder to quantify or justify unless one takes a harder look at the fully loaded cost of centralization.

As an example, consider the fact that MacDonald’s is by far the most prolific restaurant in the world or that GMO crops undoubtedly yield more productivity per acre than heirloom crops. In both cases centralization and standardization of the process has led to huge productivity gains, but at what expense? What have we lost in the process?

I would argue that monoculture and food homogenization engineered to maximize calories out per $ in have come at the cost of diversity.

Diversity of ideas, strategies, goals, ownership and agency all result in a society that, while productive, is less resilient.

Look at the various fungal plagues that have blighted banana production over the years. Monoculture brought huge yields but at the expense of resilience as a single fungus nearly wiped out the original Gros Michel variety and now a new fungus threatens the same for the Cavendish.

Similarly, Bitcoin is an inefficient network for transmitting fiat compared to Visa when measured against the criteria payment networks are usually measured on. Ethereum takes huge resources to run the equivalent of a Raspberry Pi as a global state machine.

Measuring decentralized systems vs centralized purely on efficiency and throughput kind of misses the forest for the trees. Decentralized systems have value that isn’t always obvious to a superficial analysis such as this one. That doesn’t mean they should be ignored. Often the largest paradigm shifts look like toys to start. (See Clayton Christianson and disruptive innovation.)

[Kalium]

> I would argue that monoculture and food homogenization engineered to maximize calories out per $ in have come at the cost of diversity.

I think the problem with this isn't that you come across as hand-waving. The problem with this line of argument is that there's no developed case for why anyone should care or value this particular presupposed diversity being lost.

One could argue that a profuse diversity was lost when screws, nuts, and bolts converged on a set of broadly standardized sizes. Yet few seem to lament this. Why is this different in important ways from bananas? Which is bitcoin more like?

[OrlandoHakim]

It is arguable whether or not Bitcoin counts as part of Web3. I would argue it is the original Web3 technology (blockchain) and so it is an essential component of web3. Also, I understand Bitcoin the best so can make a stronger case for it than NFTs or other Web3 concepts.

I would argue that one of the core reasons why Bitcoin was invented was to separate money from state and create a new form of quasi-money quasi-digital gold that could prevent powerful central actors from arbitrarily manipulating it’s supply based on their whims and desires. Bitcoin was born out of the ashes of the great financial crisis.

The Bitcoin genesis block famously contains a quote from the Times of London which reads as follows: “Chancellor on the brink of second bailout for banks.”

You may not personally see that as a problem, but I do as do many others. Bitcoin does introduce it’s own problems but I would argue that it does an excellent job of fixing the problem of allowing for a money free from government control, with censorship resistant peer-to-peer payments (remember the Canadian truckers?), no counter-party risk, and predictable inflation policy for the next 100 years.

Yes it is slow and inefficient and it uses a lot of energy and it is also volatile, but it also allows for things that were never possible before it existed.

[danaris]

There's plenty of solid, non-conspiracy-theory-based argument in favor of decentralized systems...for many things. I don't think currency/banking will ever be one of them.

[OrlandoHakim]

The Canadian truckers and their supporters would like to have a word with you.

As would the citizens of Cyprus and Sri Lanka who will have or have had funds from their Bank accounts taken because the powers that be decided that the customers money was better off in the banksters hands.