2026-01-10 19:37:30

Centralization tends to lead to this problem—product iteration can't keep up with the growth of user data. Based on a few prediction platforms I've used, the experience indeed varies.

In terms of depth and liquidity, a certain international prediction platform performs well, with many real participants and a proactive team communication. But another prediction platform's attitude is quite cold, and emails mostly go unanswered. Conversely, some platforms on the BSC chain have serious fake order issues, but interestingly, the team is very down-to-earth, and feedback is generally responded to quickly. However, in terms of depth, it is indeed limited; many complex trading ideas simply can't be implemented on these platforms.

Ultimately, it's a contradiction between scale and completeness—where there is liquidity, service awareness may not be in place; where the service is good, the product depth is lacking.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

22 Likes

Reward
22
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

NFTBlackHole

· 22m ago

Haha, this is the moment when the dream of decentralization shatters. As it grows, it becomes spoiled. --- Those platforms on BSC are really, the team is nice, but the depth just doesn't keep up, which is outrageous. --- The cold attitude of the international big players is truly remarkable; email response rates are probably negative. --- Those with good liquidity are all very proud; user feedback is like it wasn't said at all. --- To put it simply, it's still a matter of fish and bear's paw. If you want it all, you'll have to wait for the next disruptor to appear. --- Small chains and small platforms are actually a bit interesting; at least they care about your feedback. --- More and more, I feel that there is no perfect product in the crypto world. Either the scale is in place but the experience is poor, or the experience is good but the scale can't keep up. --- The fate of centralization: places that burn money always have higher priority than the product.

View OriginalReply0

SocialFiQueen

· 1h ago

Really, big platforms just lie back and count their money while dismissing feedback, whereas small platforms care about every piece of feedback. The contrast is incredible.

View OriginalReply0

FarmToRiches

· 01-10 20:07

That's why I'm now playing on smaller platforms, at least they respond to me. The bigger the scale, the more indifferent it becomes, which is really ironic. There are indeed many issues on BSC, but at least you can feel a human touch, unlike the big platforms that are indifferent. Depth and service can't be achieved at the same time; you have to choose one and give up the other. I think the medium-sized stage is actually the most comfortable.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleWatcher

· 01-10 20:05

Haha, laughing to death. So, decentralized platforms are more reliable; at least no one pretends.

View OriginalReply0

DegenWhisperer

· 01-10 20:03

This is the current state of Web3: big platforms sit back and profit without providing services, while small platforms are powerless... It's really frustrating.

View OriginalReply0

SolidityJester

· 01-10 19:58

It's that same old story; when it gets too big, it starts to lose customers— a common problem with centralized systems.

View OriginalReply0

UnruggableChad

· 01-10 19:52

Haha, this is the fate of centralization. The bigger it gets, the more it drags down. Liquidity and service really can't be achieved simultaneously. It's a bit frustrating.

View OriginalReply0

RadioShackKnight

· 01-10 19:39

Scale and experience are always a trade-off, and centralized platforms are stuck in this dilemma.

View OriginalReply0