100 years of whatever this will be

- Economy of scale means this won't be "AirBnB for hosting". I can't negotiate power costs or get as much efficiency out of my operations as someone with a real datacenter. Not even close. [EDIT: see also, Bitcoin mining, which started out "anyone can do it!" but wasn't anymore as soon as real money got involved. Just buy an expensive rack of ASICs that aren't good for anything else, and find some place to arbitrage power costs. Yeah, real accessible to the masses, that is.]

- All these "decentralize everything down to the end user" efforts neglect that most personal computing devices run on battery and sleep most of the time, these days, and that trend does not seem likely to reverse. See also: IPFS. Most folks don't have an always-on desktop- or server-class computer for this sort of thing, at all, and would have to buy one to participate. That's not super appealing. Also, decentralization tends to come at costs for routing and lookup, which often end up eating cycles (so, power, so, battery) on the end user's machine, compared with centralized options. See again: IPFS. So they end up adding centralized access points that are what most users actually interact with (see, yet again...) or their entire audience is computer nerds. If they have any real, viable use case, it ends up being as part of a centralized system, to help make it more resilient or cheaper to operate.

>so they usually propose a hard fork, or a rewrite in

Sometimes you hard fork. We used to compute ballistic trajectory by hand. Huge rooms of "human computers". We did this until a better way presented itself then we hard forked because actual computers did the job much better.

In addition most pragmatic project runners(Kraken, Coinbase, etc.) use the blockchain and the traditional financial system together. Many serious DeFI projects(e.g. stablecoins) do the same. I think its clear that anyone serious about DeFi knows they have to start with the financial system where it is today.

I think what you are stating is a bit reductive.

Everyone is getting richer, as for greedier..

> Everyone seems to increasingly be in it for themselves, not for society.

The socially responsible company movement is now a thing. Most companies now care about the environment and their employees to a point that was unheard of decades ago, even if only because of PR.

> Or, people who are in it for society tend to lose or to get screwed until they give up.

And yet there’s a market for doing good things. The number of NGOs is in all time highs.

> Artists really don't get enough of a reward for all the benefit they provide.

What? Artists have never had it easier. From spotify to patreon, or even youtube. Distributing and monetizing has never been easier.

> Big banks and big governments really do nonspecifically just suck a lot.

Suckness is non-surprisingly tied to government. The closest a market is to government the more it sucks.

> The gap between the haves and have-nots keeps widening.

The statistics say otherwise

> You can't hope to run an Internet service unless you pay out a fraction to one of the Big Cloud Providers, just like you couldn't run software without paying IBM and then Microsoft, back in those days.

On premise is still a thing.

> delivering less per dollar, gigahertz, gigabyte, or watt.

Except compute has never been more efficient.

> We even pay 30% margins to App Stores mainly so they can not let us download apps that are "too dangerous."

We pay them for curating and maintaining a system that’s working for millions of people.

> IT security has become literally impossible: if you install all the patches, you get SolarWinds-style supply chain malware delivered to you automatically. If you don't install the patches, well, that's worse. Either way, enjoy your ransomware.

When wasn’t it that way? Were you around the days of the “ping of death”?

> Everything about modern business is designed to funnel money, faster and faster, to a few people who have demonstrated they can be productive. This totally works, up to a point.

Citation needed

> But we've now reached the extreme corner cases of capitalism. Winning money is surely a motivator, but that motivation goes down the more you have. Eventually it simply stops mattering at all.

Call me crazy, but once I’ve covered my expenses and built a safety net, I’d rather slow down, enjoy my life, spend time with my family… That you see a negative there somehow is baffling to me.

The really interesting thing is that marriage is a contract that changes over time (as the government modifies law), without either party re-consenting to the new agreement. It's part of why I will probably never get married, it technically represents infinite risk.