I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm laying out why I hold this view, so whoever reads this thread can reach their own conclusion. You've used "permissioned" several times now without once defining it, so let's actually look at internet-computer:native: 🔸Anyone can deploy, no approval needed 🔸Anyone can stake and vote 🔸Anyone can apply to run node, accepted by NNS vote (Node providers are elected and removable by that vote, not appointed ) 🔸Anyone can write protocol code and propose it (Passed proposals execute on every node automatically) t’s funny how some people accept whatever narrative passes for “good decentralization,” as long as it comes from the right chain. ETH’s own DAO fork had ~5% turnout, with 25% of the yes votes coming from a single address. The voting window was under 24 hours and wasn’t publicized, the foundation pushed it through as the client default anyway. But since you have $ARB in your bio, let’s look at that one too: the DAO voted 76% against AIP-1, and the foundation had already sold the tokens before the vote even closed.🤣 That's the kind of thing that literally can't happen on internet-computer:native NNS DAO isn't just signaling, it's executing. You know, the "autonomous" part of DAO that other chains only use as a narrative. Proposals have to pass the vote before the code change is executed by NNS DAO, there's no foundation/core team deciding after the fact. I guess the top people in the field that @dfinity recruited weren't just cashing paychecks while reinventing the wheel, they actually thought through how a proper decentralized network should run. p.s. this is fun, but I'm still waiting for an actual argument, not just "nah, it's permissioned, it broke the ethos" while completely ignoring how current blockchains actually run. theblock.co/news/defi/2023-0…