Hive users are very fond of their decentralization, and that would remove the need for big exchanges like Binance.
To be fair, that's not decentralized. We'd replace one centralized solution (Binance) with another (keychain). The difference is Keychain is open source and also, I imagine bridge ends won't hold customer funds except during the transfer, which isn't the case with Binance, which holds its customers' funds in custody, sometimes for long periods.
Apart from the ones you mentioned, there also isn't any KYC with keychain. I guess we have different views on centralization. The differences you mentioned above makes me think it will still be decentralized, but you consider it centralized.
Great point about KYC! I missed that, and it's an important distinction.
It is centralized to the point things are still under the control of one team, as far as I know, but I would use them any day instead of Binance or Coinbase.
It is centralized to the point things are still under the control of one team
If that is your definition of centralized, then I doubt we can see a fully decentralized system. Most applications are controlled by one team[the developers], and that is expected. Peakd, Ecency, Leo, SPL, etc are under the control of one team. I don't think I know of one that isn't like that.
Applications yes. Although SPL has the DAO where decisions can be taken that overturn the wishes of the team. Protocols no, they are, or should be decentralized. For example, ChainFlip, which I talked about yesterday, seems to be a decentralized protocol (run by 150 validators), that has the role of a bridge between blockchains.
Although SPL has the DAO where decisions can be taken that overturn the wishes of the team
This isn't actually true, and only works up to a point. The SPL DAO only has control with SPS related things, and the team can actually veto things; especially if they don't agree with it.
the team can actually veto things
No, they can't. They can say they won't build or change something as the DAO wants to, but they won't do that often. They can't veto how SPS or other DAO funds will be used.
I don't think they want to get into adverse positions with the DAO. Quite the opposite. They want the DAO to help fund development. And the DAO will do it, as long as what it gets in return is good enough.
They can say they won't build or change something as the DAO wants to, but they won't do that often
Isn't this a veto? I agree that they won't do that often. You have to remember that we are still reliant on the team to code and perform the changes that the DAO wants. If it goes against their vision of the game, they can veto it. If it is labor intensive, they can push it back to the end of the to-do list and get stuck in limbo, which is like it was vetoed anyways.
Well... It's a partial veto. Because the DAO can veto how SPS is used. But I agree, they still have that power, and they still use it, despite their commitment to decentralization. At this point, the DAO can't hire anyone else to do their job, if they refuse, because the code is not public, other than the blockchain part (I think).