Let's Talk About Decentralisation

We like to think that cryptocurrency, for the most part, is decentralised. We are told by those that create them that the network is a decentralised network in which the users are responsible for change and improvements to the network. While some stick to that more than others, the truth is, they're lying to you. None of it is truly decentralised.

Since the bear market began we've seen massive losses across the world of cryptocurrency. Many have simply been killed off as a lack of interest in a constantly shifting market, regardless of what that cryptocurrency had originally offered. While that is the case, many cryptocurrencies have managed to not just survive, but maintain a lot of their value.

While hundreds of cryptocurrencies saw massive growth in both users and market price during the bull market, most were met with that growth not only disappearing, but decreasing from its original numbers. It's fairly simple as to why: the central authority that governed the cryptocurrency did nothing to innovate and hold in those users. The features they offered to begin with were simply nothing of value.

Steemit Inc is one of many central authorities that had saw massive growth and price movement as a result of the bull market, but had done absolutely nothing during that time to welcome such users in. It relied entirely on the market price, rather than offering new reasons to stick around. Rather than using those funds they've been dumping on us all to say "Hey, we know why you're here, but this is why you're going to stay here."

Those that have survived and managed to keep some of their value and users had done so because they not only had a very public roadmap, but because they listened to what people said. Those central authorities ensured that value was constantly added to the market through useful changes and features that the users and developers had mentioned.

If you haven't yet figured out what my point is, it's this: decentralisation is nothing short of a facade. There are decentralised manners in which the network relies on, but it's governed by a central authority that is expected to maintain and provide value to the network through constant change. The most change we have seen since the bull market is Steemit Inc quickly scrambling to ensure their stake and very existence survives.

The users have been hard at telling Steemit Inc what needs to be done to address inflation, poor UI, and features that would be beneficial in making users both old and new happy. So far, we have been given a downvote button and the yearly hardfork which still doesn't really address any of the issues that have been thrown out into the void.

Whether or not Steemit Inc really cares is a good question. Change seems slowly and lazy as fuck compared to the vast majority of other centralised authorities. Finances are not a valid argument when so many have performed the exact same actions via premines, or even thriving on donations from the community alone.

The problem with the word decentralisation is that it encourages this sort of practice. It allows lazy development cycles or poor management to take no actual action as the argument that nobody is truly an investor of any company takes reign. It allows people to enter the market and get absolutely burned while the developers can continue as is. Now, I realise that this post seems overly negative on Steemit Inc's performance, but honestly, fuck it. There shouldn't acceptance of this. It's why so many other cryptocurrencies were just left to bleed off and die. People abandoned the projects and moved on to those that are listening, and are constantly communicating in a manner in which the users can get what they want not only seen, but implemented.

While I've seen Steemit Inc staff state that the value isn't in market price, but instead in the features and technology provided itself -- a quote from Jeff Bezos regarding Amazon's own performance early on when questioned about the company's share price -- it holds ignorance in believing that the market price isn't directly connected. Claiming that value doesn't stem from innovation, or that Steem's users don't have the right to complain about price because they aren't shareholders, just users. It's just yet another example of the facade of decentralisation.

If Steem was truly decentralised, we would have dethroned Steemit Inc a long time ago and advanced faster. Applying constant features and improvements, having votes on changes we'd like to see and when; what's more important and addresses the needs of users, which are investors, investors of the network's future. Rant over.