Solend seized $170M of user funds

If that's the case, then 99 percent of all the chains will fall away and leave just two.

ETH and Tezos.

presumably new tech will be discovered and new chains will be able to handle that. But as of now, the digitization of art actually works very well in crypto, in the form of NFTs (which is a polarizing word)

Solana is a VC back speculative chain which is trying to kickstart art and PFPs on it, because that's basically the only thing you can do right now with where the tech is at. But all the real artists have already made their home on ETH and Tez.

Sensible protocols put upgrades behind a time lock (3 days or 5 days seem to be common). That way anyone who doesn't like the changes can exit the protocol. Solend apparently doesn't have one, which means if you agree to use it, you agree the protocol may change while you're using it (though this should happen after a governance process at least).

If you choose to use a protocol that is upgradeable without a timelock, that's your own decision. Also, this supposed "whale" likely has enough Solend tokens to block the vote if they wanted to.

Since it's even open to a vote, I'd argue it's still fairly decentralized. A more centralized protocol would have privileged users who can make changes or seize funds without needing to go through a vote.

The /r/cryptocurrency subreddit also seems to have an axe to grind with Solana, and people will grind that axe without caring to understand the details of how these things work. I don't use Solana (have maybe $50 of SOL coins, but mainly play on EVM chains), but the frenzied shrieking of crypto shitposters who pile onto FUD bandwagons without doing any due diligence is headache-inducing.

My personal opinion is that the Governance URL would be far more neutral than any article or thread where people are piling on to use this to criticize Solana (the same change to a protocol could happen, and probably has happened, on Ethereum). The /r/cryptocurrency subreddit is not neutral when it comes to Solana, and 99% of the commenters don't understand what they're talking about.

Criticizing Solend if the proposed changes are made is fair, but this is basically how DAOs work... token holders vote to make proposed changes. If you don't like the existing implementation and governance process, you should avoid the protocol, or pay attention to what might change that could affect you.

If I sign up for a web service and agree to a ToS (which always says it may change and that continued use means I'm agreeing to any future changes), I have far less transparency into what changes might be made. Solend users agreed to the protocol implementation which includes upgrading without a timelock (bad practice). But at least there is a governance process, which gives users a chance to get out when unfavourable changes are happening.

Also, I don't know enough about Solend or Solana to verify this, but users of lending protocols typically get a distribution of the governance token based on their stake, which means the "whale" being discussed likely could block this vote if they wanted to.

And who said it was OK? Because I didn't. The whole point is in the Solend case and the reversal of the entire Ethereum chain to restore the funds due to DAO hack tells us that not only 'decentralization' is a complete massive lie, but it also shows the nonsense about 'cOdE iS lAW', and it will only get worse with proof-of-stake.

We have been way past the lies of the 'decentralization' narrative since 2016.