I agree, and so do many. The question remains whether Safe Network is also subject to these problems, in other people’s eyes if not ours, and if not how we make the case.
I think it’s a useful debate to have with skeptics because maybe we’re not doing as well as we’d want, and maybe we still have things to learn and improve (always!). I like to share the Safe Network fundamentals a lot these days because I think they’re a good way to demonstrate the values and goals we have, and the fact the project (under @dirvine’s stewardship) has been true to them for 15 years. I think that’s powerful, but am not sure it’s convincing.
For example, tante has written an article critiquing Web3, has since looked at Safe Network, acknowledges differences but is not convinced it’s that different. Are we? If so, how? And how do we demonstrated this? See: