This is the problem I see with decentralized projects. The user experience here, is essentially the same as WeTransfer. The only difference is the underlying technologies. Now, one would have to either blindly trust that the infrastructure is truly decentralized, or have the time and necessary skills to audit the code. And then they'd have to trust that web server is actually hooking up to the code that was just audi…
Yes, and it's because security is a feature, not a solution.
99% of people (think your Mother, or your non-techie buddy back home) - do not care that much about these things. 'The feature' they care about is 'sharing'. They can already get that robustly via regular services.
So maybe 'it's nice' to have some degree of extra privacy', but not if they actually have to do something, think about it, install something - yada yada.
For a select few, privacy/security is in and of itself a feature, and might be a primary motivation for use/purchase, but it's a small group.
Example: intellectually, I care about the issue, but really, I could care less that Instagram has 3 of my photos, or that FB has a very small number of posts that I've made.
I believe the 'decentralization' movement will happen when:
A) On the consumer side it's easy, obvious, there is a push - and possibly when adoption isn't necessarily driven by the decentralized nature, rather, something else, a 'benefit' that is derived
B) Enterprise. They will definitely not want their data out in the world willy nilly. Think of how much critical data Salesforce has for example. After a few more leaks, it could be that CIO's everywhere demand more 'on premise' and this could be an opening for more decentralized services.