I know it's not a productive question, but I'm still interested in hearing what the stakers have to say. It's a genuine question.

Your arguments are valid and well-balanced. Thank you for justifying them.

That's based on the premise that a platform such as SN needs to satisfy those 3 conditions.

I'm curious about a future where these may be satisfied, but for now, my experience has been much better here on SN than on NOSTR for instance.

I think centralization in many cases is just a better user experience. Also, it makes the most sense for most applications (that's why most shitcoins don't solve any problem, as most problems don't need an inefficient blockchain construct). Except for a small number of people, no one actually cares about having their social media being censorrable (also, currently, NOSTR already feels quite centralized in terms of available relays).

I like browsing Hacker News, because Dang does (or at least, used to do) such a good job at moderating the platform. SN tries to use sats to replace said moderation. It's a new experiment, beyond the traditional Web 2.0 paradigm.

Not sure what P2P would mean in the context of SN as here the goal is to reach many people at once. You need some type of platform for that, be it relays or clients in NOSTR, or the current platform here.

As said in my other answer though, if it does not generate steady income, it'll die out. VC funding will dry out. As it should.

Sorry, I'd like to reread and structure my rant above, but I need to go. Feel free to ignore :)

You're my favorite ~science contributor ;)

EDIT: 100 sat (nearly) automatic up-vote deal to compensate for the posting fee is a no-brainer too of course.