Again, plenty of DeFi applications are way more accessible than fiat counterparts and that’s a unique feature that probably can’t exist elsewhere - better availability of certain types loans for trading, ability to earn income from providing liquidity to exchanges, decentralized exchanges without third parties. Not all defi is particularly useful or better than fiat counterparts, eg a crypto mortgage will not likely exist anytime soon.
I don't know if you read the article but the last paragraph is what inspired my original comment. FTA in quotes below.
"If crypto and DeFi are truly that great for innovation now, isn't it kind of ironic that after nine months of work, I'm starting to realize that my project's challenges don't lie within technology but are made of legal uncertainty?"
Unfortunately people are getting the idea that crypto technology is revolutionary and jumping in with unrealistic expectations.
This man is writing large, thoughtful explanation -complete with concessions and limits- that is not hyped and not biased and you’re latching on to minor details and using that as a reason to poo-poo the logic? You’re petty arguing against a calm factual explanation. They’re not even good arguments.
“You could have done that by putting it under your bed” is so silly and intellectually dishonest. Try to imagine the other side here, and at least consider the possibility that there is room for additional value beyond your world view. At least try to see the other side even if you won’t want to see from the other side.
As far as intellectual dishonest goes, storing your wealth in physical items that are in your physical possession is something that people actually do. I personally don't do that, but the reality is that some people don't trust banks and they don't trust a network of computers. To say that it is dishonest to point out that there were already alternatives to banks seems inaccurate.