The path to decentralizatoin seems to confuse a lot of people.  This is natural considering we live in a centralized world.  Thus, we see the tendency to compare the onset of something decentralized to that which is centralized.

This is a mistake as will be shown in this article.

>If you asked people in 1989 what they needed to make their life better, it was unlikely that they would have said a decentralized network of information nodes that are linked using hypertext. 
<center>[Source](http://farmerandfarmer.org/mastery/builder.html)</center>

Many question what are the advantages to decentalization and isn't something better off just being centralized?

This is a valid point considering how things start.

When a centralized platform gets started, it usually is more organized that one that is decentralized.  The later is often a hodgepodge of ideas thrown together.  Centralized start ups have a much clearer vision with the team behind it pushing things in a pre-determined direction.

We also see the centralized platforms benefit from the fact they are better able to reach out to third party developers.  This will attract more applications to the platform, assisting in the growth rate.  Decentralized systems tend to languish behind.

Centralized systems also have the advantage of offering incentive to those developers.  Big names can be lured to the platform, enticing an immediate following.  Again, this helps to foster the growth of the entire platform.

Unfortunately, this situation tends to reverse itself.  The early developers find that, as the platform grows, it starts to swallow up the power structure.  The company behind the project inserts a lot of rules aka Terms of Service.  It becomes the gatekeeper for the entire platform, requiring approval for any new applications and updates.  Of course, due to the popularity of the platform, there is a piece of all earnings taken by the company from the applications.

https://www.nasdaq.com/sites/acquia.prod/files/styles/720x400/public/image/5ebfeebbf2fbf5d9973e203b244f8dc88ca825f2_Nodes_1TGgsOv.jpg?itok=wPeObvRr
<center>[Source](https://www.nasdaq.com/sites/acquia.prod/files/styles/720x400/public/image/5ebfeebbf2fbf5d9973e203b244f8dc88ca825f2_Nodes_1TGgsOv.jpg?itok=wPeObvRr)</center>

Anyone who tried to get an application through Apple knows exactly how the process works.  Of course, due to the size and reach, many opt to tolerate this.

Another limitation to the centralized structure is that all improvements to the platform is dependent upon the employees of the company.  They are the ones who are tasked with adding to the system.  Since it is a closed network, outsiders are basically not welcomed.  Ideas can be offered yet it is the core group that is going to accept and implement them.

Decentralized systems take a much different path.  The disadvantages they have early is made up for as the system grows.  What starts out as a hodgepodge approach ends up determining a direction as more developers and entrepreneurs start to arrive.

Without the centralized incentive, they tend to arrive with a vision.  They have an idea that they want to pursue.  Decentralized system offer the ability to follow this desire.  

The growth rate of decentralized systems, while slow in the beginning, can quickly pass the centralized counterparts.  Here again, the strength in numbers begins to work in its favor.  As the ecosystem grows, more developers and entrepreneurs are designing applications.  Since they are not dependent upon the workforce of a company, development can arrive from any corner of the globe.

That said, the entire discussion can be summed up in the relationship between the different parties.

![](https://images.hive.blog/DQmS6BHST2jmbtaVeeAHxhZDu8u9A57x3uRsUYYzqsWeX6M/image.png)
<center>[Source](https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/0*7lrwGIDbAYk6q7zG.)</center>

The relationship structure follows the S-Curve model.  Eventually, the platform evolves into an extractive system with its users while ending up in a competition with its developers.  Ultimately, the only one who it truly favors is the platform.  Everyone else is basically being used.

Decentralized structures do not form this type of  relationship.  In fact, it is the exact opposite.  Cryptonetworks align each participant to work together for a common goal.  The desired end is the growth of the network (and increase in token value if one exists).  

Today, there are millions of skilled developers around the world.  Many end up working for centralized companies, commanding large salaries.  However, that is only a small percentage of the development base.

At the same time, hundreds of millions of people have the entrepreneurial spirit.  They want to create something that is their own and grows over time.  Most are aware of the limitations of working for a company especially with recent events.  Long term service means nothing.  The security of a job (paycheck) is really an illusion.

The fact that decentralized networks take longer to "get going" should be encouraging to those looking at the different cryptonetworks.  A blockchain such as Hive takes time to develop.  The core group needs to be further augmented with newer developers and entrepreneurs who see the opportunity to capitalize on different ideas.  

Over time, since there is not the adversarial relationship, decentralized networks will end up with an enhanced user experience while attracting more individuals.  To get there, basic issues such as scaling must be resolved.

This is the point most of the industry is at right now.  In a few years, we will likely see this problem solved and the tide will start to turn.



___
If you found this article informative, please give an upvote and rehive.



https://images.hive.blog/0x0/https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/doze/MkkDNhyH-2020_04_13_16_57_48.gif

gif by @doze

![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/taskmaster4450/AyvHLP0Q-image.png)

Posted Using [LeoFinance](https://leofinance.io/@taskmaster4450/decentralized-networks-start-slow-then-come-on-strong)