Why is blockchain always so hard to use? Confessions of a Product Designer

Blockchain-related services are often criticized for being difficult to use. A handy example, the new version of the admiring citizen web3, which supports creation and reporting, requires participating users to pledge 5,000 LikeCoins to support creation with monthly income. The concept is similar to the Nobel Prize. However, as always, there are users who persevere and persuade them to abandon legal currency and not provide traditional payment methods. It is difficult to understand and difficult to use.

Why is blockchain so hard to use? Will it become easier to use like other technologies? If so, is there an end to its simplicity? I would like to discuss it from the perspective of a product designer.

computer idiot

First of all, I would like to say that this article is not to shirk responsibility. I have always believed that there are no stupid users, only stupid designers; it is the responsibility of the product designer to make the product easy to use. I just wanted to discuss what challenges I faced in order to do my best to make blockchain services easy to use.

I'm quite patient in asking myself, and someone I've discussed with me can probably testify. But even me, there were times when I lost my patience and teetered on the edge of anger. That's when users call themselves "computer idiots."

Make no mistake, I don't think users are "computer idiots", and I never even said that I never thought anyone was a "computer idiot".

And don't get me wrong, I don't get fired up when I hear someone calling themselves a "computer idiot." What I can't stand is the attitude of using "computer idiots" as a shield, showing an attitude of "in short, I just don't understand, it's not my fault that I don't understand", closing my ears and refusing to learn. These people who modestly call themselves self-knowledge on the surface, but the subtext is "I don't care, and I don't plan to learn it, anyway, you help me get it."

Blockchain is not just 3Cs

If the above attitudes are applied to general electronic products, information technology, and AI services, users can still be impersonal and shout that users are always right. In short, if your products are harder to use than Apple’s, you will fail. I will not use your services. It's your fault. But when the service involves blockchain and cryptocurrency, there will be one more level of consideration, because the core concept of blockchain is trustless.

Trustless means that users do not need or lack proof to trust a third party, but control their own assets and their own destiny. Just think, technology products and services are convenient, most of the time because others do it for you, because of hosting. The cloud is easy to use, because Amazon handles all kinds of tedious work for you, such as setting up hardware and expanding capacity when needed; Gmail is easy to use, not only because the function is designed properly, but also because it helps you set up and maintain the mail server; Apple is easy to use , of course, you need to integrate different chips in advance. There are a lot of transistors in the chip (M1 has 16 billion!), plus a variety of modules, it becomes a small one in the palm of your hand. machine. It's cool to have someone else do it for you, as long as you trust others, or at least, there is a mechanism for people to verify. For example, we may not have the ability and time to check whether Android has a backdoor, but as long as it is guaranteed to be open source, we can reasonably believe that someone in the world has the ability and time to verify that it will be disclosed when problems are found.

Going back to the blockchain, because of the trustless concept, users are often required to take one more step, learn more or less new knowledge, or abandon some opinions. In modern developed countries, banking is taken for granted to a point where most people have forgotten that it works because we put our assets in custody. If all the banks don't serve you tomorrow, you'll immediately worry about how to properly keep your assets, even if you're not very rich.

Not your key, not your coin

As another practical example, explain how hosting can be taken for granted until the user is unaware that they are hosting. One of the hardest elements of cryptocurrencies has always been the 24-word mnemonic, and once forgotten, the asset is lost forever. Almost all new users, including me, were taken aback. I have been complained many times, can't the password be reset? Did you make a mistake! This expectation is understandable, but if you think about it, if there is a service provider that can reset your password, it means that it can also reset your password without your consent , making you unable to log in, and also That closes your account. Your account and password are "hosted" with the service provider. To be trustless, service providers cannot have this power.

Some readers may say, no, Binance is also very easy to use, and Coinbase is also very simple, no different from ordinary Internet services. The reason is simple, Binance, Coinbase, and all centralized exchanges, are custodial services that manage assets for users. The blockchain has a classic saying "not your key, not your coin". Even if you have 1000 Bitcoin in Binance, you are still zero from the blockchain. That 1000 Bitcoin belongs to Binance, but it promises to let you in the traditional system. Get those assets back.

Well, I have to admit that the core idea of blockchain is trustless, which is not for me, for people who value ideas. It can even be said that most people don’t care at all. Most of the holders of cryptocurrency are hosted on centralized exchanges. What they care about is not the concept of cryptocurrency, but its appreciation potential.

Can't choose YouTube or YouTube?

I am not a commercial success of grape hosting services, I can only say that it is not my pursuit. In addition, I do not deny the human needs of custody, but it is contrary to the spirit of the blockchain. Furthermore, let me complain. Although the well-known criticism of "dehumanization" is often targeted, it is not necessarily universal; for example, casinos with no upper limit can best satisfy people's gambling. Can we criticize restricted gambling services as "dehumanizing"? The lazy and even ugly side of human nature, should products and services also fully satisfy? Strictly speaking, what centralized exchanges satisfy is human inertia, allowing people to “hold” cryptocurrencies without learning new skills.

Trustless probably doesn't resonate with people who have adapted and embraced the inadequacy of traditional finance. I try to take a step back and explain in terms of a paradigm shift that I believe the reader has grasped.

In other words, my mother, who is in her 90s, always complains that TVB's programs are ugly, but she always keeps watching while complaining, even though Viu and other channels are just a click away. If you are willing to learn more, open YouTube, add Netflix and Disney+, you will be more like me, you will only think that there are too many good shows and no time to watch, and you will not think that there are no good shows to kill time. Unfortunately, I just didn't have the courage to transform her.

Using the logic of complaining that blockchain services are "too difficult to use and inhumane", my mother can say, why can't YouTube be as easy to use as TVB? The answer is clear to everyone. It is very simple to put YouTube on TV, and technically, Google is absolutely capable of getting a "video jockey" to play programs screened by AI all the time and become a "YouTube channel". The problem is that the core of YouTube is diversity. Is YouTube that can't choose programs still YouTube?

In the same way, the core of the blockchain is trustless. Is the cryptocurrency entrusted to others counted as your cryptocurrency? Everyone thinks that while the elderly are voluntarily trapped in TVB, why are they not willing to be trapped in the traditional banking system?

Denying the above problems is the main reason why blockchain services inevitably involve conceptual innovation and are relatively difficult to use.

I am the author of "Blockchain Sociology: Reimagining Money, Media and Democracy " Gao Reconstruction , slash writing/teaching/entrepreneurship, exploring freedom of the press , financial freedom and democratic freedom , published every Friday in #decentralizehk weekly .

These articles are fully open and aimed at popularizing knowledge; if you believe in value, don't punish openness and encourage closure, please pay to subscribe, and the money will be fully invested in the LikeCoin Fundamentals Scholarship.

[ Course funding support ]