Okay, so first of all, you know very well that "moral objections to decentralized governance" is not the problem people have with blockchain technology. But be

Okay, so first of all, you know very well that "moral objections to decentralized governance" is not the problem people have with blockchain technology. But beside that, perhaps I didn't quite make the point of my comment clear enough. You're trying really hard to convince me of things. I know very well how this works, and what problems it solves, and I do think it's a good solution to this problem. The main reason I'm not going to buy one of these isn't anything about the technology; it's because I already have a solution for myself and I have no reason to bother switching to another solution. This isn't about my opinions. I'm explaining why the general public is going to continue to ignore this otherwise valid solution. The marketing around it actively ties it to a thing that most people have negative opinions of, and makes the feature they actually want seem like an afterthought. Even here, you repeatedly refer to it as a hardware wallet, because that has always been the primary focus of those devices. The effect of this is that the average non-blockchain-person just sees you posting a lot of comments in a tangentially related thread trying to sell them on blockchain tech. Do you see why this, from the perspective of a non-blockchain-person, is counterproductive? You will continue to have trouble getting people to adopt these devices until either the marketing focus changes or public opinion on blockchains changes. And one of those is going to be much easier to accomplish than the other. I am not telling you this to bash blockchains. I do have negative opinions on that space, but I don't care to debate them here; nothing would be accomplished by either of us by doing so. I am giving you advice on the way your message is perceived by others.