It wouldn't be a web article if there wasn't some hyperbole in the title, like speaking for everybody :)
But ignoring the title, here is how I see it working out long-term between "Running your own bank" VS "Using someone else's bank":
It's true that most people don't want to run their own bank, it comes with lots of issues. But there is a section of people who do want to run their own bank. That the cryptocurrency space exists in the first place is the evidence of this.
So can we solve for both things? Yes, I do believe we can. The primitives that support the whole system can be "Running your own bank" while allowing entities above that layer to offer "Use my bank if you want to instead, with insurance and all that", so we get the best of two worlds. The opposite cannot be true, we cannot offer people to run their own banks, on top of a set of entities being the only ones running their banks.
In other words, you can build centralization on top of decentralization, but the opposite is not true. So by having the base being decentralized (and dangerous for the common human), we can still have centralized parties on top of that (less dangerous for the common human), that offers the traditional security people are used to, for the ones who want it.
Decentralization at the core gives people more options, which I think in the long-term leads to a better world, compared to the alternative. Not because it is decentralized, but because it gives more options to the ones who need it.
But ignoring the title, here is how I see it working out long-term between "Running your own bank" VS "Using someone else's bank":
It's true that most people don't want to run their own bank, it comes with lots of issues. But there is a section of people who do want to run their own bank. That the cryptocurrency space exists in the first place is the evidence of this.
So can we solve for both things? Yes, I do believe we can. The primitives that support the whole system can be "Running your own bank" while allowing entities above that layer to offer "Use my bank if you want to instead, with insurance and all that", so we get the best of two worlds. The opposite cannot be true, we cannot offer people to run their own banks, on top of a set of entities being the only ones running their banks.
In other words, you can build centralization on top of decentralization, but the opposite is not true. So by having the base being decentralized (and dangerous for the common human), we can still have centralized parties on top of that (less dangerous for the common human), that offers the traditional security people are used to, for the ones who want it.
Decentralization at the core gives people more options, which I think in the long-term leads to a better world, compared to the alternative. Not because it is decentralized, but because it gives more options to the ones who need it.