Arguments following this pattern are often made to defend technologies: The current state A is bad, and we should aim for state B. Technology X aims for state B, so X is good.
This pattern is fundamentally flawed. X needs to be useful on its own, no further assumptions made. Otherwise it will never get traction, regardless how much we wish B to come true.
Yes, and rightfully so. But to convince someone that SOLID is the right approach for decentralization, one needs to refer to the specific technology, and to specific use cases where specific user groups have an incentive to switch to it.
We know from the mainly failed P2P wave that just wishing for decentralization is not enough.
This pattern is fundamentally flawed. X needs to be useful on its own, no further assumptions made. Otherwise it will never get traction, regardless how much we wish B to come true.