Ceres is definitely the second most interesting object after Mars (and Earth) in the solar system. But the gravity is very very low. As a naval base, I can see it. Let’s wait until Dawn gets there and we learn more about it.

The moon does not have resources that Mars does not have. The Moon is basalt, and Mars has lots of that, though it almost certainly also has mineral deposits refined by hydrothermal flow, which is also where metal ore veins on Earth come from.

Mars also has several regional magnetic fields that are sufficient to be significant radiation shielding. We don’t know about Ceres, Vesta might be more likely to have one of those,

Space transport issues are a bit more subtle, so that Ceres being in the Middle of the Belt is actually a disadvantage. Waiting times for orbital windows between objects on similar orbits can be very high, because their relative angular velocities are low. Venus is actually a better centre for asteroid trade than Ceres, Mars or even the Earth because launch windows are more frequent from-and-to there for all the Belt.

Alex, as for water Ceres certainly has a lot and I think it’s a bit naive to worry about its excessive usage in the early days of Belt colonialism.

Aaron, monopolising Ceres would merely encourage China, India and Russia to go grab outer Belt comets which might be even more water rich. Such a diaspora would be good for humanity, but makes a poor selling point.

Any supply of water is finite and will not last forever. The question is whether by careful husbandry (e.g. closed-loop ecosystems) we make it last for an arbitrary length of time, or we take the squandering of resources for granted and start thinking of where could we get some more (to squander as well). I hope that this question is rhetorical.