I wonder if we got right the value proposition for "decentralization", but missed the persona that is interested in that value prop what if it's not the everyday user, but actually institutions that need to have tight control over the risk profile of their capital (similar thread to what @nic__carter wrote about a while back about bitcoin becoming the settlement layer for banks) under that lens, users don't care where they perform most of they low value transactions, but institutions (and bigger players) care about where they do that means, that consumer-facing L1s with questionable decentralization, actually make sense. They are not meant for billions of dollars of RWA, but of billions of dollars of low-value transactions (e.g payments) if anything, they don't put ethereum in a tight spot, (or even Solana), but rather all the consumer-facing L2s or L1s. on top, if a corporation has huge distribution already (like Stripe), it makes sense for them to just want to build an L1 that serves their own customers. They have the distribution, they don't care about network effects. To that effect, Stripe makes more sense than USDT/USDC chains, which do not in fact have distribution.