1983: "Betamax thinks it can change the way we watch movies. It's running out of time to prove it."
Whether Ethereum or some other idea is ultimately the one to make smart contracts ubiquitous is irrelevant for all but ETH investors.
Technology is not static.
It’s an excellent article including an overview of Ethereum, its current challenges and the proposed solutions and focusing on how important is to provide better governance to the community and the development of technology. I agree with one of the commenters that the title is a bit misleading, for it’s not really as much about the urgency for Ethereum as is about how important it’s to make the necessary modifications to keep providing.
I don't really think that the title of the article reflects it's own content very well.
Pretty much all of the problems that are discussed in the article are also being addressed and the methods that are being used to address them are also listed. It's a pretty good overview of some of the governance issues facing the ecosystem, and also an outline of some of the figures operating to fix this issue.
The only mention related to "It’s running out of time to prove it" is this paragraph:
The nagging truth, though, is that all the positivity in Prague masks daunting questions about Ethereum’s future. The handful of idealistic researchers, developers, and administrators in charge of maintaining its software are under increasing pressure to overcome technical limitations that stymie the network’s growth. At the same time, well-funded competitors have emerged, claiming that their blockchains perform better. Crackdowns by regulators, and a growing understanding of how far most blockchain applications are from ready for prime time, have scared many cryptocurrency investors away: Ethereum’s market value in dollars has fallen more than 90% since its peak last January.
I wouldn't really consider any of the "competitors" as actual competitors, because they're either:
OK, so it's a well-edited article with an edgy modern tang. I up-voted out of pity: it's certainly better than zero. However, stuff like
> There’s also its continued reliance on Buterin for guidance
shows just how deep the author (editor?..) dug. There seems to be a quest for an authoritative figure to explain "what's _really_ going on", and guess what: if you look hard enough, you'll find anything you want.
Ethereum doesn't "think" anything. "Ethereum" is a loose label around a set of technologies, and neither labels nor technologies "think". ("Don't lump us all together: it's impolite.")
The article looks like an opinion piece at first, with a developer-centric conference as a backdrop. (The conference happened a month ago, there's no "news" value here.) Yet - as [explained by others](https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/a5tkts/ethereum_thinks_it_can_change_the_world_its/ebpa5g1/) - the article's content fails to deliver on the title's promise: I found no analysis that would show it's "running out of time", - and, frankly, I've read articles like these every time the markets sag, and their opposites every time the markets bulge.
On those who down-voted: I don't blame them.
As with every human community, there are always people who don’t swallow criticism easily. However I think you’re unfair to many more by characterizing conversations on r/ethereum as mostly being about price. I reckon on this subreddit most comments are definitely not about price. And on this thread the most extensive comment is not about price and is well-reasoned.
Wow. What are you talking about? This is an article from MIT technology review, not BS blockchain-crypto crap rag.
I was under the impression that the Ethereum community, which I myself am a part of and a believer, has a more open minded approach to objective 3rd party opinions.
Even though the title, I agree, is a bit clickbaity, the article is from a somewhat respected publication and worth a discussion on this forum.
Objective from the perspective of someone not actively involved in the Ethereum community. Adoption and interest in a new technology or paradigm shift, will always trigger scrutiny before becoming mainstream. Accepting this fact and trying to understand non-conformist opinions shows maturity. I guess we're not there yet.