US Senators implore Department of Defense to expand the use of Matrix

More to the point, even with e2ee, there is still communication metadata that is leaving your network for a third-party service. In a defense context, you would almost certainly prefer that the data does not leave your network unnecessarily.

In terms of Matrix usability and performance, Matrix 2.0 (https://matrix.org/blog/2024/10/29/matrix-2.0-is-here/) represents a huge step forward and can be used today with compatible clients such as Element X (https://element.io/blog/deep-dive-into-element-x/)

One opaque MITM is worse than 1000 MITM whose inner workings are bound by a secure protocol.

That’s how the internet works. Your connection doesn’t always go directly to the server you want.

Either way, you can run your own network of matrix nodes which are isolated from the rest of the open matrix network.

The idea was to build a network that --unlike pre-existing networks-- did not need centralization. The goal was to make the network resilient to parts not working, with obvious military benefits.

The same can be said for messaging systems. Centralization makes it easy to take the whole service out.

> It might have been an easier case to make if Matrix wasn’t an uphill battle in terms of usability and performance.

I expect TCP/IP to have been an uphill battle as well. But now we take it for granted. This likely will also happen to Matrix if it is used everywhere.

Now I hope the DoD makes some massive donations to Matrix. Money makes uphill battles more likely to have a good ending.

Especially when security and cryptography enters into the picture.

It doesn't matter until one day, something happens that does make it matter.

Imagine if a centralised model was used and a foreign state managed to sever connections to the internet that was used by that country/central server. It's more resilient to be able to route messages even if the network is under attack. This kind of thinking is behind the original design of the internet although we now seem to have centralised large portions of functionality.

And even to a Canadian like me, America is objectively a foreign nation state. Notably, a foreign nation with a "business-focused" incoming president-elect that has previously tried to buy Greenland, and just went "Ha-ha wouldn't it make sense for Canada to become the fifty-first state"

If there was ever a time to trust America less, I'd argue it's now.

In other words, people are actively thinking of and implementing measures to mitigate the risk of accidentally/unintentionally backsliding into a closed standard.

As it stands, the protocol is essentially only being moved forward by Element, who implement features before they are standardized - an implementation existing being a prerequisite for standardization. It sometimes takes a long time for features to be standardized, essentially making Element’s implementation the de-facto standard. It really is a Chrome-type situation. I’ve heard from client developers that Element even occasionally deviates from the standard in some places.

I don’t have a super practical solution for this, as of course I’m happy that Element is putting in the work and currently nobody else seems capable of or willing to do it. But it sucks.

Technically Matrix and Element are independent and the specification is controlled by the Matrix Foundation and the "Spec Core Team". However there is significant overlap between people on the SCT and the foundation and Element employees. This is mostly because of history. At the start Matrix and Element were in most aspects the same people. Element was a company founded to make money with selling Matrix based products to then support the development of the Matrix protocol (I might be getting some of the details wrong, but I think that is roughly right). This resulted also in Element being one of the few Matrix employers early on, so people who ended up on the SCT were often either from Element or later hired by Element, because those people also wanted to work on Matrix as their day job instead of just in their free time.

More recently new SCT members were added, that aren't employed by Element (and there was at least one before that, who was never employed by Element), so Element's involvement in the SCT is clearly reducing. Similarly the SCT is supposed to make decisions, that don't benefit a single company (but of course that is hard to guarantee, so you need to judge that for yourself). I personally do believe, that every SCT member is trying to follow that rule.

Additionally the Matrix Foundation is currently in the process of setting up a more neutral governing board (it was already controlled by 5 guardians before, of which 3 were not involved directly with Element). You can read more about that setup here: https://matrix.org/foundation/governing-board-elections/ But the gist of that is that different sponsors as well as ecosystem and individual members can vote on representatives for the governing board and the governing board is then supposed to take over most governance responsibilities aside from the specification.

(For disclosure, I am both elected one of the elected board members as well as an employee of a different Matrix based company, but I am not speaking for either here.)

So I think there is clearly progress to make Matrix more independent of Element. It is also a fact that the Matrix Spec proposal process has always been open for anyone to submit a proposal, even if the SCT then sets the priorities on what gets merged into the spec. In my experience most of the proposals are stuck in the "needs more work" stage, which is something Element has historically put a lot of effort into and other companies and individuals either didn't want to put it the same effort or especially regarding the individuals, simply didn't have the resources to do that. But even that is getting more diverse nowadays.

There are also plenty of alternative clients for Matrix and a few alternative servers. They might not have the same polish as Elements products, but they do have a significant share of users, that are happy with them.

So I think Element is still very present in the Matrix ecosystem and that will still be the case for a while. But there is clearly work being done to make Matrix more independent and I think with the historical background it also makes sense why. There was a pretty good talk about that at the Matrix conference from kitsune about the mitosis of organisational structures.

Also, I don't think that few clients in the Matrix ecosystem support E2EE. I think most of the more popular ones support it nowadays: NeoChat, FluffyChat, Nheko, Fractal, gomuks, Cinny, Tammy, etc. It is actually quite hard to find a client, that doesn't support E2EE: https://matrix.org/ecosystem/clients/ (use the feature filter at the bottom to filter by E2EE support)

You can also read more about the foundation and how it is supposed to function here: https://matrix.org/foundation/about/ But to repeat my initial statement, I do think Matrix is independent in most aspects from Element, will become independent in most of the remaining aspects and that Element is currently simply a very large contributor and employer in the Matrix space, with a history without which we wouldn't have Matrix today.

Relevant blog post: https://matrix.org/blog/2024/12/unrelated-cybercriminal-netw...

https://matrix.org/blog/2024/12/unrelated-cybercriminal-netw...