It would be understandable as our mere experience of reality is based on what we call I, which is, even typographically, a symbol of centrality. Nevertheless, we have seen recently some applications of decentralization that question our feelings on the subject.
Decentralized is unfortunately related to unstructured. Even mathematically, ordering properties are lost if the graph looses its root. But we're humans (are we) and we're maybe not designed the optimal way. Maybe we are a species that needs help organizing itself, and help was unavailable until now. Maybe we only need soft hierarchy brought by decentralization instead of strong hierarchy principles of centralization. Maybe soft hierarchy for everyone is a form of centralization anyway and we can benefit from what we loose even if we loose it. That's my personal belief.
So, when I see that the word Gridcoin is not used in the paragraph of the whitepaper[+] proposal relative to decentralization (all other paragraphs use it), it rings a bell instinctively++.
It feels like decentralization is only a second class value, something not so important for Gridcoin. I'm really against this way to interpret the whitepaper.
I'm even considering making a poll. I propose to add to this paragraph the "In the wake of Bitcoin, Gridcoin acknowledges decentralization's benefits." sentence , or any improvement.
Would it be wise ?
I'd be glad to read your thought about that ( but you won't change my mind !) or your unstructured opinions about decentralization :-)
[+] https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Whitepaper/blob/master/Gridcoin_White_Paper_DRAFT_1.0.2.pdf p.10
++ thank you 