I also respect Dan greatly, but think he hasn’t absorbed what SAFE is about too deeply. To say the SAFE Network is “broken” is a bit odd. I can see how Storj, etc…, could be considered so, but SAFE is breaking completely new ground and is not out of the gate yet.
The question is “Will SAFE work in the wild and be good enough to do what it’s trying to do?” That is yet to be seen. We’re not to a place where comparisons can really be made yet. Those of us who’ve got a picture of its potential believe it’s going in a unique and completely revolutionary direction which, IF IT REALLY COMES TOGETHER AS PLANNED, will change a lot fundamentally.
I’m not sufficiently tech savvy to know what Dan knows. As I said, I really respect what he’s done and am excited about the potentials of EOS. But I do have this to analyze with: a couple years ago Dan visited Troon and when he left had some comments about the project which were not encouraging.
I don’t even get on the field, barely in the bleachers of his technical game, but I could tell from the things he said that his criticisms weren’t based upon a real understanding what SAFE is about. I think SAFE springs from a perspective which is sufficiently different than his view of the world that he has. That’s really okay because he is getting on with things from his perspective, which are really, really cool, but so are others, including @dirvine, et al.
Dan really IS a free market, libertarian sort of guy, which is why his vision is cool, so while he has an offhand opinion, I don’t see him trying to tell people what to think, or insisting he’s right and others wrong. “Let the market decide” seems to be his guide.