The author seems to miss that one of Moxie's central criticisms is that, all else being equal, distributed solutions tend to lag centralized ones.
The reason for OpenSea et al. providing centralized services isn't accidental--it's not that it's "early days"--but that whenever there's an opportunity to innovate, those innovations will first appear for centralized services.
If we hope for distributed solutions to be on par with centralized, we are in effect hoping for an inefficient market, or one without innovation (giving distributed services time to catch up).
This criticism, in a way, has little to do with "Web3" at all. Instead, it's justification for the alternative solution Moxie has been working toward: one where crypto(graphy, not currency) allows the cost and feature advantages of centralization while preserving (or in fact exceeding) the user privacy of distributed solutions.
(I have some criticisms of Moxie's vision, but the author seems not to engage with the argument's real substance.)
The reason for OpenSea et al. providing centralized services isn't accidental--it's not that it's "early days"--but that whenever there's an opportunity to innovate, those innovations will first appear for centralized services.
If we hope for distributed solutions to be on par with centralized, we are in effect hoping for an inefficient market, or one without innovation (giving distributed services time to catch up).
This criticism, in a way, has little to do with "Web3" at all. Instead, it's justification for the alternative solution Moxie has been working toward: one where crypto(graphy, not currency) allows the cost and feature advantages of centralization while preserving (or in fact exceeding) the user privacy of distributed solutions.
(I have some criticisms of Moxie's vision, but the author seems not to engage with the argument's real substance.)