I share the same opinion.
Resources should be concentrated.
If the resources being put into Motoko development were instead invested in UI development, the adoption rate would change significantly.
However, Dfinity has never adopted opinions from forums like this. That may be the biggest problem of all.
Just leave Motoko out of your rant 
You are wrong about it and you will find out why soon enough. I’ll give you a clue - Arrival movie + languages + LLMs.
Language and Perception (Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis)
A central theme of the film is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which proposes that language influences thought. This is expressed through quotes such as, “If you immerse yourself into a foreign language, then you can actually rewire your brain” and “The language you speak determines how you think and… it affects how you see everything”. The unique circular written language of the alien Heptapods leads to the question of whether this “nonlinear orthography” reflects their thought processes.
We are talking about pragmatic changes here. Not some sci-fi you watched. I loved the movie though
The movie is there only to help illustrate the power of the hypothesis. What I’m talking about is actually very pragmatic. With a few more improvements to LLMs, it won’t matter to the developer which language the LLM writes in; it mostly matters to the LLM itself. For the developer, not so much-apart from the semantic meaning the LLM brings back.
A few more llm improvements and you can clone YouTube and their ai moderation, and their video compression and optimization architecture, and their monetization architecture and their scaling architecture and their UX/UI considerations and their videos streaming capabilities and their notification systems and their ad platform architecture without ever writing a single line of code! What a time to be living in!
Don’t you think that’s setting the bar a bit high?
You could, without writing a single line of code. You will need to write essays and have a team of really amazing devs chatting with LLMs all day long. Natural language is currently the highest-level programming language. That doesn’t mean you won’t be programming. Also, even if you built exactly the same system as YouTube, nothing would happen-for the same reason you can clone Bitcoin and nothing will happen.
What I’m trying to say is that if we don’t take a more user-friendly approach, it won’t get adopted. Realistically, not many people will choose a tool that’s both hard to use and paid.
And while decentralization has real advantages, for most users those benefits are edge cases.
That’s why I believe prioritizing an approach that actually gets adopted should come first, above everything else.
You’re right it’s not there quite yet. But It’s rapidly getting better. It’s quite powerful IMO, but not quite at the level where you can be successful without reading code, or understanding the logic at a fundamental level.
That essay would be your set of assumptions, essentially the code that the LLM would be reproducing then. Yes you wouldn’t have to “code”, as most software engineers now do not code but there is an irreducible amount of comprehension of the program that you have to possess compared to treating the system as a black box and the language as the abstraction
It’s definitely much better to understand what you’re doing 
Current LLMs can fill gaps, repeat patterns, and follow directions, but for anything non-trivial, you still need to provide guidance.
Caffeine: 55,000 dapps created so far. Yes, a far cry from 1M but for a beta product with little to no marketing, what did we expect? Still better than nothing even though no dapp store yet or crypto sending functionality.
Dogecoin: 0 AI assisted dapps running directly on it
Bitcoin: 0 AI assisted dapps running directly on it
Solana: 0 dapps running “on” it
All the rest of crypto: 0 dapps running directly on them (basic ledgers other than Filecoin and Arweave, etc.)
WINNER: ICP
Meanwhile these other chains are somehow worth more?
Honestly the more you give people, the more they complain. You can never please them.
The end user of ICP just like the end user of the laser printer Steve was talking about don’t need to know anything about the technology or the language that is primarily used to make it work. Do you write code directly in PostScript?
The Steve jobs video was very interesting and he’s right. You do need to work backwards from the customer’s perspective.
ICP has two types of “customers”:
End Users don’t need to know anything.
It is only the devs that care about either Motoko or Rust…but Motoko is pretty easy to learn and a lot of devs already know Rust. So this is not the limiting factor in my opinion. Other things like the “no database” paradigm are a bigger deal most likely.
The main reasons imo why there is no mass adoption here?
I don’t think this is a matter of tech that has no market. This is building something great that hardly anyone knows about. Good tech sales people should be able to sell this from many angles. One angle is to offer UTOPIAs to all universities wanting to trial them for free to begin with. There are so many useful things that can be accomplished on a fully secure blockchain for universities to utilize imo. “research” fully secured on the blockchain, “health records” fully secured on the blockchain, DeSci, student accounts fully secured on the blockchain along with their personal data and grades, online banking dapps fully secured on the blockchain with value added capabilities like crypto usage and tokenized securities. The DAO system itself can be used for voting systems on campus or in elections, etc. It goes on and on and AI fully on chain and AI agents is just getting started.
There are so many angles here.
Prompt: Create me a function that computes the area of a triangle.
Motoko
import Float "mo:base/Float";
public func triangleArea(a : Float, b : Float, c : Float) : Float {
let s = (a + b + c) / 2.0;
Float.sqrt(s * (s - a) * (s - b) * (s - c))
};
Rust
pub fn triangle_area(a: f64, b: f64, c: f64) -> f64 {
let s = (a + b + c) / 2.0;
(s * (s - a) * (s - b) * (s - c)).sqrt()
}
Haskell
triangleArea :: Floating a => a -> a -> a -> a
triangleArea a b c =
let s = (a + b + c) / 2
in sqrt (s * (s - a) * (s - b) * (s - c))
F#
let triangleArea (a: float) (b: float) (c: float) : float =
let s = (a + b + c) / 2.0
sqrt (s * (s - a) * (s - b) * (s - c))
NASM
global triangle_area
extern sqrt
section .text
triangle_area:
; xmm0 = a, xmm1 = b, xmm2 = c
movapd xmm3, xmm0
addsd xmm3, xmm1
addsd xmm3, xmm2
mulsd xmm3, qword [half] ; s
movapd xmm4, xmm3
subsd xmm4, xmm0
mulsd xmm4, xmm3
movapd xmm5, xmm3
subsd xmm5, xmm1
mulsd xmm4, xmm5
movapd xmm5, xmm3
subsd xmm5, xmm2
mulsd xmm4, xmm5
movapd xmm0, xmm4
sub rsp, 8 ; align stack
call sqrt
add rsp, 8
ret
section .rodata
half: dq 0.5
BASH
triangle_area() {
local a="$1"
local b="$2"
local c="$3"
awk -v a="$a" -v b="$b" -v c="$c" '
BEGIN {
s = (a + b + c) / 2
area = sqrt(s * (s - a) * (s - b) * (s - c))
print area
}'
}
EXCEL
=SQRT(((A1+B1+C1)/2)*(((A1+B1+C1)/2)-A1)*(((A1+B1+C1)/2)-B1)*(((A1+B1+C1)/2)-C1))
APL
triangleArea ← {
s ← (+/⍵) ÷ 2
√(s × ×/ (s - ⍵))
}
J
triangleArea =: 3 : 0
s =. (+/ y) % 2
%: s * */ (s - y)
)
PostScript
/triangleArea {
/c exch def
/b exch def
/a exch def
/s a b add c add 2 div def
s s a sub mul
s b sub mul
s c sub mul
sqrt
} def
Forth
: triangle-area ( a b c -- area )
f>s f>s f>s
fover fover f+ f+ 2e f/ \ s
fdup fover f- f* \ s*(s-a)
fover fover f- f* \ * (s-b)
fover f- f* \ * (s-c)
fsqrt ;
No. I have actually thought about this in detail. The issue is the tech stack. The devs are the main users of a cloud architecture and everything it has to offer, not end users. When we talk about aws being our competitor, we are wrong because we are not the same in any sense. A more accurate term is alternative. And as an alternative we have failed as it is almost impossible for devs to migrate and use something so radical.
Caffeine is a secondary product, not the primary product. We have momentum, but it not near enough to say that (the CBR has not moved an inch). And if your standard is dogecoin, then I think there is no point debating this. There is no amount of marketing that will make up for a poor product foundation. That would be in fact a waste of money. The greatest products grow through word of mouth. Not ad placement. As I said before, no one I know in my dev community has an idea of what Motoko or a canister is, 4 years after launch. You cannot argue that 5000$ a day is enough momentum not to consider a pivot after a decade of research. Come on!
And in fact a bigger case is that Caffeine cannot even build mobile apps (please do not talk about PWAs. I beg you), a medium where 99.99% of the modern internet is consumed
We cannot keep burning cash on something that is clearly not being adopted
not the primary product *yet.
I guess it is time to rebrand then. From ICP to Caffeine
I actually agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I think the user experience is what ICP has been lacking. Both from a developer AND end user perspective. I think caffeine was the “solution” to the developer user experience problem.
It’s not quite good enough yet to understand exactly what it should be doing, and needs a lot of direction from someone who has atleast some understanding of what should be happening under the hood. But, it is getting better very quickly. We are going to see some power house caffeine apps, sooner than you think. Just my opinion.
Maybe you’re right. But I highly doubt it. Software is not as easy, and most of the easy software has already been solved by WordPress, Shopify and more… And in fact a bigger case is that Caffeine cannot even build mobile apps (please do not talk about PWAs. I beg you), a medium where 99.99% of the modern internet is consumed
This is in fact a bigger case that we should care more about being a cloud where whatever is being built is agnostic, not just web apps
I 100% agree with you, that it is a travesty it’s impossible for someone to cleanly migrate their DB to our stack.
The developer team needs to understand one fact clearly: products are made for people to use. Don’t keep talking about this tech stack or that tech stack—think more about why users would want to use your product and what makes it attractive. What you build is meant for users to consume, not something users are obligated to use just because your tech stack is complex. To be honest, even if you built a blank page, as long as users get one cent every time they refresh it, you could still attract a lot of users.