I'm aware that tremendous effort has been and is being invested in that.
But I have yet to be convinced efforts in that direction won't all boil down to "trading decentralization for efficiency."
In which case, why not use a centralized, much more efficient solution?
Anonymity of nodes?
If avoiding KYC / government-control is the primary motivation, then more centralized ledger systems look a lot like current payment networks... just with anonymous operators. (Oof)
All crypto cultists I know don't give a damn to give all of their info to any provider, out there, be tracked everywhere "they already know everything" and yet there is a problem for a 1$ donation on some random website when they using their real dollars online for literally everything.
Also, there's literally 0 ways other than bartering to get bitcoins really anonymously, and the number of people able to transact while staying anonymous is below 0. You need to take your credit card and pay for it on an exchange, so it's not anonymous.
And the anonymous chains are borderline ignored, because being anonymous is really not what drags people into Bitcoin, but the hope of finding a fool paying more than they did.
I don't know if I'm the only one, but I can't see myself giving my identity for 10c to buy blog articles.
Especially since first and last names are a powerful tracking tool that's not as easy to change as your IP address.
I agree though that a centralized solution would be more performant, but it would have to have network effects for it to gain widespread use, which means it would be a monopoly and enshitify and start taking an unreasonable fee. So government should step in and offer something for online micro transactions, but at government speed we might be decades out.
So then we are back to decentralized ledgers…. Not technically better but organizationally, politically, socially better…