You’re proving my point beautifully. Yes, the UX is rough. Yes, the protocol has trade offs. But notice what you’re really saying: “I’ll sacrifice censorship resistance for smoother notifications.” This is precisely the revealed preference I’m describing. You want the benefits of sovereignty without the costs of sovereignty. But sovereignty has never been convenient, ask any revolutionary, any founder, any builder of new systems. The “condescending speech” critique is fascinating. You’re offended that someone would suggest your choices reveal your values. But they do. Everyone’s do. Twitter’s UX is “better” because you’re the product being optimized for engagement farming. Nostr’s UX is “worse” because you’re a sovereign user, not a data point. The protocol makes good UX hard because good UX under centralization requires surrendering control. That’s not a bug, it’s the fundamental tension. You can choose smooth notifications and algorithmic feeds. That’s fine. But don’t pretend it’s anything other than trading sovereignty for convenience. The builders who stay are solving these problems because they believe the trade-off is worth it. Those who leave reveal they don’t. Your frustration is valid. Your priorities are just different.