https://decrypt.co/95039/metamask-consensys-30-million-users
"As part of its plan to pursue its various goal, MetaMask soon will be launching a Decentralized Autonomous Organization or DAO—a popular crypto governance tool often described as an internet community with a bank account.
"There is a DAO that is being being formed right now in the context of MetaMask," Lubin added. "It won’t govern MetaMask, but it will enable the creation of novel new pieces of MetaMask to be funded."
Lubin did not provide further details about the DAO or a date for its launch, but did confirm that MetaMask is intending to launch a token."
Topic: Metamask "decentra-lied" to us? (Read 293 times)
As Metamask is able to let users freely customize their RPC/node endpoint, I wonder if some users choose to change their default RPC other than Infura, does there will be some downsides from the users' side? Technically, no matter what node the user pick, it shouldn't affect anything at all about how the way users interact with the blockchain right?
Metamask is just an "interface" to the ETH blockchain. That means people can simply change the RPC URL to their liking if they find an specific node to censor transactions. The project is open source too, so if there are risks of "centralization", anyone can just copy the code and launch a fork that's decentralized. Metamask developers are not stupid enough to make their project centralized, because that will make them lose many users. We should "keep our eyes open" just in case, in order to help preserve crypto/Blockchain tech's decentralization.Metamask is a great product, but it is an interface software and nothing more, there is no need to make a big deal out of them because they are not as big as we think. They are used a lot, but also could be replaced in a single second and that leaves them powerless and caution.
As Metamask is able to let users freely customize their RPC/node endpoint, I wonder if some users choose to change their default RPC other than Infura, does there will be some downsides from the users' side? Technically, no matter what node the user pick, it shouldn't affect anything at all about how the way users interact with the blockchain right?
Metamask is just an "interface" to the ETH blockchain. That means people can simply change the RPC URL to their liking if they find an specific node to censor transactions. The project is open source too, so if there are risks of "centralization", anyone can just copy the code and launch a fork that's decentralized. Metamask developers are not stupid enough to make their project centralized, because that will make them lose many users. We should "keep our eyes open" just in case, in order to help preserve crypto/Blockchain tech's decentralization. Just my opinion
After reading all the posts and opinions of people came to this conclusion. Maybe all or a lot. I also watched the video and listened to opinions not only on the forum about Metamask. That is, if desired and pressure on the company by those in control or those with power and pressure, they can force the organization to block objectionable users. If that's the case then it's very sad.
As Metamask is able to let users freely customize their RPC/node endpoint, I wonder if some users choose to change their default RPC other than Infura, does there will be some downsides from the users' side? Technically, no matter what node the user pick, it shouldn't affect anything at all about how the way users interact with the blockchain right?
Metamask is just an "interface" to the ETH blockchain. That means people can simply change the RPC URL to their liking if they find an specific node to censor transactions. The project is open source too, so if there are risks of "centralization", anyone can just copy the code and launch a fork that's decentralized. Metamask developers are not stupid enough to make their project centralized, because that will make them lose many users. We should "keep our eyes open" just in case, in order to help preserve crypto/Blockchain tech's decentralization. Just my opinion
If the wallet is blocked in some countries doesn't mean that it is centralized, they can be stopped when nodes stops that is what is the case with PoS coins if I am not wrong but the solution is simple just import to another wallet and make transactions but go for ooen sourced wallets.
I am also wondering how this is done. Perhaps it is a matter of looking at the IP address where the user is logging in from into the relevant wallet/tool/exchange? If the user is logging in from a sanctioned country then the access is not allowed. But I could be wrong.
The message above your post explains it, Metamask dont control the server of infura node that is responsible for the accessibility of the coin and the transactions. 
~snip~
I think the one that they supposed to block are Russia because of the war incident but the main point here is that they are still centralized because they have the ability to block a transaction.
Even if we are in a country where there's no regulation, I think it's safe to change wallet now and change coin because we never know if next time, our country is now in the list. Our coins is going to be useless then if that happens.
I think the one that they supposed to block are Russia because of the war incident but the main point here is that they are still centralized because they have the ability to block a transaction.
Even if we are in a country where there's no regulation, I think it's safe to change wallet now and change coin because we never know if next time, our country is now in the list. Our coins is going to be useless then if that happens.
Technically nothing has changed about Metamask, this incident is beyond Metamask's control. Metamask coincidentally chose infura as the default node for broadcasting transactions so that Metamask would also accept the consequences of what happened to Infura. But actually the node can be changed to any other provider you want via settings. In fact it can also be set to your node if you run it. cmiiw.
I really don't understand why there's need to block transactions in the country. Is the government of Venezuela fighting against cryptocurrency or something else. I recall that cryptocurrency is gaining more popularity especially in Europe and other parts of the world. Fighting against it by blocking transactions isn't a wise move by any government.
It happened by accident, here's the clarification. Infura is currently blocking node access to certain countries due to regulatory requests. The rest, Venezuela is actually not one of the countries currently targeted for blocking and there are no new rules currently prohibiting residents from transacting crypto.
Even if we are in a country where there's no regulation, I think it's safe to change wallet now and change coin because we never know if next time, our country is now in the list. Our coins is going to be useless then if that happens.
~
The node they are using is from Infura, well this is not really a big case for Metamask. Because we as the user can make our customization by ourselves, good to know at least Metamask give user information to change the RPC.
As Metamask is able to let users freely customize their RPC/node endpoint, I wonder if some users choose to change their default RPC other than Infura, does there will be some downsides from the users' side? Technically, no matter what node the user pick, it shouldn't affect anything at all about how the way users interact with the blockchain right? The node they are using is from Infura, well this is not really a big case for Metamask. Because we as the user can make our customization by ourselves, good to know at least Metamask give user information to change the RPC.
I really don't understand why there's need to block transactions in the country. Is the government of Venezuela fighting against cryptocurrency or something else. I recall that cryptocurrency is gaining more popularity especially in Europe and other parts of the world. Fighting against it by blocking transactions isn't a wise move by any government.
It happened by accident, here's the clarification. Infura is currently blocking node access to certain countries due to regulatory requests. The rest, Venezuela is actually not one of the countries currently targeted for blocking and there are no new rules currently prohibiting residents from transacting crypto.
The response I was hoping was Metamask dropping Infura since they actually blocked some regions but NO. They are also saying they are following those sanctions imposed on some countries which I find alarming. I guess it's a call to dig deeper into these "decentralized" wallets which actually uses centralized infrastructures.
This is a problem, I could understand if this happened and they were not aware of it but once they found out then they did what they could to improve their systems and avoid something like this happening again.But instead they are backing infura, meaning that they do not really care about their customers at all and are willing to allow a centralized party to isolate them, and that should tell us a great deal about the kind of people that are managing metamask.
I just saw this tweet right here: https://twitter.com/JacobOracle/status/1499429043644641297
I am a Metamask user myself, especially when doing transactions in either ETH, BSC, MATIC, etc. Okay so ETH is decentralized, but Metamask isn't like in this case for Venezuelans. I am also not sure if this applies for Metamask accounts importing to other non-custodial wallets like Trust Wallet.
Despite that we are only required to enter private key or seed phrase in this app, Metamask's actions on Venezuela alone blocking all ETH transactions doesn't define them as truly decentralized. For me, I think they are "almost" similar to Abra where it is government-regulated but has recovery phrases.
I think this is definitely a long-term concern if it applies to other countries. I'm considering an alternative to Metamask like BlockWallet, etc. What do you guys think?
I am a Metamask user myself, especially when doing transactions in either ETH, BSC, MATIC, etc. Okay so ETH is decentralized, but Metamask isn't like in this case for Venezuelans. I am also not sure if this applies for Metamask accounts importing to other non-custodial wallets like Trust Wallet.
Despite that we are only required to enter private key or seed phrase in this app, Metamask's actions on Venezuela alone blocking all ETH transactions doesn't define them as truly decentralized. For me, I think they are "almost" similar to Abra where it is government-regulated but has recovery phrases.
I think this is definitely a long-term concern if it applies to other countries. I'm considering an alternative to Metamask like BlockWallet, etc. What do you guys think?
I think it has something to do with the node you're connected to. A quick change in the RPC url will do the trick. As far as I'm aware, Metamask is open source so it's easy enough to make a fork if the original project becomes centralized. At its current state, I would say Metamask is still decentralized. But you never know what'll happen in the future if developers change their stance because of greed. It's always best to make a backup of your seed just in case. As long as you don't put more money than what you can't afford to lose, you'll have nothing to worry about.
I am also wondering how this is done. Perhaps it is a matter of looking at the IP address where the user is logging in from into the relevant wallet/tool/exchange? If the user is logging in from a sanctioned country then the access is not allowed. But I could be wrong.
honesty banning any crypto wallet to certain country was not decentralized charater, i am still see it controlled by someone to drive any political condition. if banning still relevant in crypto , i didnt see we are in new finance system and still around traditional which anytime government could banned our account just like happening at canada. its nood good and maybe all centralized market will broken someday following country regulation or order.They just can't use Metamask. No one was ever arguing that Metamask is decentralized - they clearly have a centralized developer team, otherwise there is no way they can push out so many updates and so many marketing posts.
alot way to access their money , metamask on application and there are alot alternative way to access our fund in wallet that we hold key.
Well yeah, but this doesn't mean that Venezuelans all of a sudden cannot access their funds.
They just can't use Metamask. No one was ever arguing that Metamask is decentralized - they clearly have a centralized developer team, otherwise there is no way they can push out so many updates and so many marketing posts.
The blockchain itself is decentralized. Unless something is a true dApp, it is going to be centralized in some manner.
They just can't use Metamask. No one was ever arguing that Metamask is decentralized - they clearly have a centralized developer team, otherwise there is no way they can push out so many updates and so many marketing posts.
The blockchain itself is decentralized. Unless something is a true dApp, it is going to be centralized in some manner.
What you guys are missing out is already said here. It is not metamask software that is getting centralized, it is the company that is getting centralized. This was shared a bit back up before, and you guys are still thinking it is centralized wallet, and it is not. Wallet is still by far the most decentralized thing you could use because it literally is just interface, it is not even a wallet.
Your money is in blockchain, the metamask software just allows you to see it, or send it or receive and so forth, it doesn't actually hold the money in there, it just helps you with it, even if you end up with metamask disabled, you could reach to it from another wallet very easily. So, it is the company that bans access, but the wallet is still decentralized.
Your money is in blockchain, the metamask software just allows you to see it, or send it or receive and so forth, it doesn't actually hold the money in there, it just helps you with it, even if you end up with metamask disabled, you could reach to it from another wallet very easily. So, it is the company that bans access, but the wallet is still decentralized.
Thanks for clearing that up, the op almost got me thinking what is the next decentralized wallet to switch to, your explanation was insightful, if the company is centralize and the service still remain 100% decentralize i think we shouldn't worry much, metamask have no access to personal data, all information stored directly in the blockchain.
ever since i started using mm, it has become my number on wallet (for holding my alts) and i don't have the intention of changing it anytime soon.
After all these years this is the first time that it came up, there should be an official announcement about this coming from developers of Metamask because all these years they made us believe that Metamask is decentralized, but with this report, many suspected that it's not decentralized anymore and it could happen to any countries or location, there have been a lot of reports of hacking I don't believe on that because we all now only you can access your wallet with your private key but now things are unclear.
What you guys are missing out is already said here. It is not metamask software that is getting centralized, it is the company that is getting centralized. This was shared a bit back up before, and you guys are still thinking it is centralized wallet, and it is not. Wallet is still by far the most decentralized thing you could use because it literally is just interface, it is not even a wallet.Your money is in blockchain, the metamask software just allows you to see it, or send it or receive and so forth, it doesn't actually hold the money in there, it just helps you with it, even if you end up with metamask disabled, you could reach to it from another wallet very easily. So, it is the company that bans access, but the wallet is still decentralized.
I am also wondering how this is done. Perhaps it is a matter of looking at the IP address where the user is logging in from into the relevant wallet/tool/exchange? If the user is logging in from a sanctioned country then the access is not allowed. But I could be wrong.
Infura is one of those centralized servers on which the decentralized ethereum actually relies on. This isn't much different from the bitcoin relay network. So while the metamask seed would still work if someone was to run an ethereum full node in venezuela and try to make transactions from there instead of Metamask.
Bitcoin can continue to be bitcoin because it doesn't need the kind of central network throughput which something like Ethereum needs.
I think it is amply clear that the "decentralized smart-contract" paradigm is no longer the buzz word. It is called Web3 now and is supposed to be defined by decentralized, open source architecture. Yet, it is turning out to be little more than an AWS and Azure alternate.
Bitcoin can continue to be bitcoin because it doesn't need the kind of central network throughput which something like Ethereum needs.
I think it is amply clear that the "decentralized smart-contract" paradigm is no longer the buzz word. It is called Web3 now and is supposed to be defined by decentralized, open source architecture. Yet, it is turning out to be little more than an AWS and Azure alternate.
Although there are quite a few ways to go around this problem that you can easily find with a bit of google search and common sense, it makes me feel bad to know that metamask actually agreed to such demands. Being one of the most trusted service provider of the majority of Ethereum and other network users today, I expected metamask to be the last one to agree to such demands. Although it may not affect the number of users who opt for their services, I think there will be people who won't bother to use metamask anymore despite how convenient it is to use in most cases. And I certainly will be one of those people. It's not like there aren't any other options out there and with just a few days of getting used to there shouldn't be any problems.
Jump to: