[mnkyprskbd]

At a traditional bank you have your national deposit insurance scheme; you get that in return for converting your "assets" to the said nations issued currency but accept the authorities control of the money supply and your funds.

With decentralised money, you get the safety of a globally distributed attestation backed by cryptography without a single authority controlling the supply of money or your funds.

There is no halfway option. You either have a single authority that can exercise control or you do not; number of delegates for exercise of control is almost irrelevant since you can change banks.

[0x3f]

I mean you're just making bare assertions, of course there are halfway options. Different components of the account or relationship can have different parameters. Most crypto products are not the equivalent of depositor accounts anyway, they wouldn't be insured necessarily at a traditional bank either.

[mnkyprskbd]

Most "crypto" products aren't even crypto but custody accounts. But that doesn't change the fact that blockchains that can be controlled by specific entities unanimously are a joke of a crypto.

[0x3f]

There are just some things that are unsolved. For example, a smart contract can't act as an oracle for many types of external event. There's no way around that. Doesn't mean it's not valuable to make the rest of your product trustless. Reducing the keyholders matters. Unless you think NSA key escrow is also cool because hey, one person, somewhere, has the key, so why not the whole government?

[mnkyprskbd]

Exactly. It is the same. One person or the whole government; it is the same, when it matters.