Multiple projects that are fairly distributed have achieved a pretty high level of success, and I don't think there's any reason to think we can't do even better in the future.
BitTorrent, Git, XMPP, Matrix, Mastodon, BlueSky - all different levels of distributed and different amounts of popular, but I'd argue they're all at least moderately if not wildly successful, and all are it least partially distributed.
I think they have suceeded at their goals, but the model is wrong, and they have not accomplished the promise of distribution. I think that is impossible to remedy unless a better model is used, so yes i would like them to stop with the current buzz word approach to distribution and think more deeply about what they really want from distribution.
> BitTorrent, Git, XMPP, Matrix, Mastodon, BlueSky
I think you could draw a big dividing line between bittorrent, git and the other 4 (xmpp is maybe a bit in the middle)
Bit torrent, git (i would also add things like HTTP,irc, email, tor) are distributed to accomplish some end. So they work well and their distributiveness makes sense. It is not just a gimick.
Stuff like matrix,mastodon and bluesky are distributed because it is a cool buzz word or at best as an end in itself. Their distribution model doesn't really make sense, and it more takes something away from the product than adds to it.
Things that actually have distributed properties for good reason are cool. Things that are doing it as a PR play are silly. I want more of the former and less of the latter.
Non useful performance/scalability should be given up on. We usually call such things "micro-optimizations". There is a famous quote about them being the root of all evil.
Useful scalability (things that actually make computer go noticably faster) should be persued.
I don't think this is a controversial opinion.