We are all concerned about centralization, that's why we build what we build. However, I worry more about systems that pretend to be decentralized while baking it into the design itself.

Every project starts with concentrated funding, concentrated builders, and concentrated momentum. That is just bootstrapping. None of that becomes meaningfully diverse before there are many real users, real operators, and real reasons for others to build.

For example, Nostr will concentrate to a few corporate nodes at scale, and it is primarily funded by Dorsey and Odell.

Diversity is a product of competition, not loyalty.

The question is whether the architecture preserves that concentration or makes it possible to escape over time.

That is exactly what Pubky is trying to solve. The web needs centralized providers, so we use a system that commoditizes them down to cloud providers. If you are censored while using central systems, you can leave without losing your followers, content, etc. No other system does what we do with identity, semantic social graphing, and coordination.

Nostr, by contrast, has some centralization problems that are not just early-stage accidents, but consequences of the design itself. If it grows to scale, all of its promises collapse.

Honestly, it's a tragedy the Nostr got Bitcoiner attention first, because they are too loyal to acknowledge something better now.

I will answer your other questions separately.