I do not agree too much with that part. The fact that there are compelling use cases at launch is independent of centralized/decentralized only depends on who's

I do not agree too much with that part. The fact that there are compelling use cases at launch is independent of centralized/decentralized only depends on who's launching. Google Wave was a centralized platform and the use cases were a mess, and blogs with RSS were a decentralized platform with a pretty clear use case. I don't think the percentage of half-baked use cases is too different between centralized/distributed. It also conveniently forgets several issues: - Building a decentralized platform is technically more complex than a centralized one. So it requires more developer resources for a feature that users don't care too much about. It's also harder to iterate, because you're spending much more time in building a design consensus for new features instead of just rolling it. - Centralized platforms also have to work out the product-market fit between platform and developers. Mobile? Twitter apps (the Twitter API was a big reason that drove adoption at the beginning)? WP blogs? - Decentralized platforms will have technical limitations and hurdles that will probably hurt user experience. For example, harder discovery, diverging features, delays, data consistency... So when he says "The question of whether decentralized or centralized systems will win the next era of the internet reduces to who will build the most compelling products", that's true, but avoids mentioning the fact that, resources being equal, compelling decentralized systems will be considerably harder and slower to build. And this is not new, which is the point I made in my comment. Nothing about crypto changes these facts.