Blockchain was conceived as a technology that eliminates the need for trust: the code verifies everything on its own, and the system operates without intermediaries. In theory, it was meant to free users from banks, regulators, and human influence – but in practice, a paradox emerged. By 2025, the majority of crypto assets are stored on centralized exchanges, and trust has once again become a key element of the ecosystem – only now it’s not about trusting banks, but trusting platforms: those exchanges and crypto services.
This raises a fundamental question: is it possible to combine scalability and convenience of centralized solutions with the principles of decentralization? Is there a viable compromise?
The traditional financial system is built on trust – in banks and regulators. We trust that the bank won’t alter the numbers, that the court will recognize a transaction as valid, and that the state will protect our rights. In this model, a human being is always at the center – the one who makes decisions, verifies and ultimately bears responsibility for transactions.
Blockchain was born as a protest against this model. It offers a system where trust is unnecessary – where integrity is ensured not by a person, but by decentralized code.
In the context of decentralization, consensus is collective verification of truth. Its mechanism may differ – Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake or others – but the goal remains the same: to determine which data is valid, by setting the rules for all nodes in the network.
Another essential property of decentralization is transparency. All transactions are recorded in a public ledger that cannot be altered or forged retroactively and is open for anyone to audit. This creates a paradoxical combination: the system is private at the individual level (conditionally anonymous), yet transparent at the protocol level.
Decentralization gives the user maximum control over their assets.
The perfect example of decentralization that has earned trust through years of flawless operation is Bitcoin itself – a system that has functioned for decades without hacks or third-party interference. Its algorithm is strict, transparent, and independent of any centralized decision-making – be it banks or governments. No one controls Bitcoin.
This is pure decentralization – whose price is lower speed, limited functionality, and a complex user experience. And it is precisely these limitations that have driven the search for compromises – between decentralization (independence) and convenience (adoption).
However, even though blockchain was built on the idea of eliminating intermediaries, in practice things turned out to be more complex – and most users entered the crypto space through intermediaries.
For the vast majority of people, independence proved to be far less important than convenience. And this led to two key consequences:
The reason is simple: convenience has defeated the idea.
Self-custody of keys, working with addresses, managing fees and network delays – all of this is too complicated for most people. Centralized platforms made the crypto market easy and fast: one login, a “buy” button, a mobile app, customer support. Everything works “like a bank” – for as long as the platform itself keeps functioning.
At the same time, even within the crypto world, decentralization is far from absolute. Many projects are nominally open but lack sufficient decentralization – effectively being controlled by a few “centers”. Their contracts can be paused, addresses blocked, or rules changed. And assets such as fiat-backed stablecoins depend directly on their issuers. This creates a paradox: a system designed to eliminate trust ends up creating zones of trust within itself.
Why do people still choose centralized solutions? The short answer: speed, support and interface. They provide a “traditional” sense of security, but more importantly – a familiar and convenient way to manage assets. Users have what they’re used to: login via email, account recovery, “cancel” buttons, and one-click “buy” operations.
This comfort has become the main barrier to mass migration toward decentralization.
Today, the market is gradually searching for a golden mean – a compromise that, for example, allows users to retain control over their assets while removing technical complexity, or that still delegates management to an intermediary but protects user funds through cryptographic encryption and on-chain reserve storage.
These services combine the technological reliability of decentralization with convenience of traditional financial tools. A notable example is Trustee Wallet + Trustee Plus ecosystem:
To achieve this, it employs protocols such as AES-256, DES, Transport Layer Security (TLS), Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA), and Elliptic-Curve-Cryptography (ECC).
It encrypts both the connection and its signature, using anonymization and access via isolated requests. After registration, users set up a PIN (encryption basis), biometric authentication, and 2FA (via email and Google authentication).
Meanwhile, new technologies are already emerging that aim to bridge the gap between the convenience of centralized systems and the resilience of decentralization.
The response to the demand for convenience – while preserving “crypto-currency status” – has been the emergence of technologies that maintain transparency and independence, yet reintroduce the usability and trust familiar from traditional finance.
What does this enable?
Such solutions form hybrid models: networks remain decentralised in their architecture, while interaction with users becomes intuitive and transparent – almost like in a usual bank.
The virtual assets market is entering a phase where the line between DeFi and CeFi is beginning to blur. In the near future, we can expect the emergence of trusted decentralized services capable of combining blockchain-level security with the usability of traditional financial tools.
In this new world, trust returns – but not to people or institutions. It shifts to cryptographic rules that cannot be altered or revoked. This is what will drive the industry toward mass adoption – not through radical freedom, but through “convenient decentralization”: a state where technology remains transparent, yet people no longer need to understand blockchain in order to be 100% owners of their assets.
The future doesn’t lie in choosing between technology and convenience.
