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.
18 Likes
Reward
18
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
FarmToRiches
· 20h ago
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
· 20h ago
Haha, laughing to death. So, decentralized platforms are more reliable; at least no one pretends.
View OriginalReply0
DegenWhisperer
· 20h ago
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
· 20h ago
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
· 20h ago
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
· 21h ago
Scale and experience are always a trade-off, and centralized platforms are stuck in this dilemma.
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.