> I’d say that the blockchain developers are at least as likely to become corrupt, coerced, or influenced Some think that has already happened in the case of

> I’d say that the blockchain developers are at least as likely to become corrupt, coerced, or influenced Some think that has already happened in the case of at least one major cryptocurrency, but what happens if a system is changed to depart from the core values that the users care about? Those users create and adopt new systems. Many of the other criticisms are sort-of true, but not in a way that I think is particularly concerning. It is true that currently people lose money when they lose their keys, and that most implementations of blockchain systems don't have the ability to recover mistaken or fraudulent transactions. However, these are true because of the interests of the people using and leading development on blockchains at the moment. If we start to prioritise UX, or decide to create systems with some sort of authority to determine fraudulence (maybe government?), fixing these problems is not outside the realms of a smart contract system or a new blockchain system. The broad technology is very flexible, and could even be adapted to incorporate government actions etc if that's what the developers and users want (so far it seems not to be). For me, the aspect that I'm interested in is that with blockchain there are no gatekeepers that stop you creating software that does interesting things with value. This is still not true with the fiat ecosystem - even the OpenBanking API, forced on the banks by governments is not a great system for democratising algorithmic access to money, and for me that's the most exciting thing about decentralised money.