"I've tried explaining these as applications that no one controls, but that has a wild west connotation that isn't applicable."

it's also a statement that's simply not true. the parties that usually control financial and legal systems might not control it. it might be the case that no single person or single organization controls it. but to say that "no one controls" it is false. there are people whose input controls it. if that were not the case, it would not be useful.

My point is running all the nodes in the cloud means that the users of those nodes don't own them.

> the user's choice to use the application in the first place.

Right, but if none of the users can even run the so called "peer-to-peer" component, what's the difference between that and run-of-the-mill centralized DB software? Either way nobody but the chosen few can directly access the DB.

With blockchains, only the user has write access to the database with their cryptographic identity. Users are in full control.

Users can run a node of the peer-to-peer component if they want. Anyone can. They just don't have to.

> With blockchains, only the user has write access to the database with their cryptographic identity. Users are in full control.

That trait is far from being unique to blockchains.

But no, users aren't in full control of cloud software.

> Users can run a node of the peer-to-peer component if they want. Anyone can. They just don't have to.

After 18 months of block size debate, this is deja vu. No, anyone can't run a node if you make it cost $5k/mo

You are clearly talking to an Ethereum investor and not a programmer. A large part of the Ethereum hype is using blockchains where they are woefully the wrong tool for the job.

Haha, you didn't even take the effort to look at my profile. I write code. Like many Ethereum developers, I own ether. My comments apply to any EVM-based blockchain, and there will be many.