but for me tech and adoption are like two out of four things needed to make crypto non-evil (literally) - the third is democratic governance. the fourth is environmental impact which Algorand checks off. But it's not democratically organized or run, which is a complete non-starter.
the foundation that runs it is probably the least corrupt org I can think of in crypto (I am not an expert) but its still a group that hold a giant percentage of the existing coins, which is a huge non-starter as well, and there is no concept of citizen ship or personhood that maps to the real world.
I dont believe in the decentralization nonsense and this pseudo anonymous thing over crypto is not good. to really run a DAO you need real people interacting in something like a co-op. kind of like the internet, actually.
what some people call decentralization I call by an old fashioned name - distributed. there is another concept which is more to the point than the term centralization and it is concentration. The Gini index of a logical dimension of a system is more important to me than whether it is centralized per se.
So voting power should not be too concentrated, wealth should not be too concentrated.
We are a long way from a workable model for crypto that fulfills these criteria. Buterin who is a frontman for libertarians (and worse) who are actually evil is the closest thing we have besides the Algo founder to a non-greedy figurehead, but we need no figurehead.
what has proven good enough for countries will prove good enough for crypto. democracy.