You want decentralized, get monero in a cold wallet.
Monero is as decentralized as Bitcoin. No any difference, they share same p2p code.
Monero is more anonymous than Bitcoin. With Bitcoin you have to watch nobody could connect your address with you. In Monero this problem more or less solved.
Anonimity and decentralization are orthogonal things.
crypto is just another form of investment at this point.
Crypto never was, not is and never will be anything near "investment" or "asset". It is dumb "economists" and "finansists" gamblers who view on anything as "investment" or "asset" think that crypto is "investment" or "asset". Complete idiots with hammer who think that everything they see around is a nail. This level of stupidity, literally.
Crypto is payment system, not any "investment" or "asset". I really tied from idiots who don't even try to look what crypto really is in it's source code, but always make bold and wrong conclusions.
It will be a happy day in cryptocurrency world, when all dumbfucks who thought that crypto is some "investment" or "asset" will remain with naked, burned ass thank's to their total stupidity. This will mark end of alfa-testing stage of crypto, we are at now, and beginning of completely new beta-testing stage.
The purpose of art, like a painting, is to show beauty. The goal of good art is to evoke an emotion in the viewer. Yet a painting, which has the express purpose of showing beauty to evoke emotions can also be an investment. Or art can be used to launder money. Or as a store of value. Art, by metaphorical coincidence, can be about money to those who didn't create it, even as those who create it can use the creation of it to make a living.
If you think this analogy doesn't suit crypto, then you need to attack the analogy.
When someone make an art a "storage of financial value" he doesn't devalue art to the level of money or other financial surrogate, he just show his own inability to understand the purpose of art.
At the same time you could observe "art" that is created for the sole purpose of storing financial value like that Banksy daub or Malevich "paintings". But that things have no any relations to the real art.
So your analogy of art and crypto is perfectly valid. You could account any technology as kind of art. None of them have a purpose of storing someone's financial value.
Monero is as decentralized as Bitcoin. No any difference, they share same p2p code. Monero is more anonymous than Bitcoin. With Bitcoin you have to watch nobody could connect your address with you. In Monero this problem more or less solved.
Anonimity and decentralization are orthogonal things.
Crypto never was, not is and never will be anything near "investment" or "asset". It is dumb "economists" and "finansists" gamblers who view on anything as "investment" or "asset" think that crypto is "investment" or "asset". Complete idiots with hammer who think that everything they see around is a nail. This level of stupidity, literally.
Crypto is payment system, not any "investment" or "asset". I really tied from idiots who don't even try to look what crypto really is in it's source code, but always make bold and wrong conclusions.
It will be a happy day in cryptocurrency world, when all dumbfucks who thought that crypto is some "investment" or "asset" will remain with naked, burned ass thank's to their total stupidity. This will mark end of alfa-testing stage of crypto, we are at now, and beginning of completely new beta-testing stage.
The purpose of art, like a painting, is to show beauty. The goal of good art is to evoke an emotion in the viewer. Yet a painting, which has the express purpose of showing beauty to evoke emotions can also be an investment. Or art can be used to launder money. Or as a store of value. Art, by metaphorical coincidence, can be about money to those who didn't create it, even as those who create it can use the creation of it to make a living.
If you think this analogy doesn't suit crypto, then you need to attack the analogy.
When someone make an art a "storage of financial value" he doesn't devalue art to the level of money or other financial surrogate, he just show his own inability to understand the purpose of art.
At the same time you could observe "art" that is created for the sole purpose of storing financial value like that Banksy daub or Malevich "paintings". But that things have no any relations to the real art.
So your analogy of art and crypto is perfectly valid. You could account any technology as kind of art. None of them have a purpose of storing someone's financial value.