Opinions expressed in this article reflect diverse views and do not represent the position of WEB3+
Decentralization Does Not Mean Inaction
I have many friends in the blockchain industry who share similar values and judgments on various matters. However, there is one exception. Several friends believe that Ethereum’s level of decentralization will never match that of Bitcoin. To achieve true decentralization, Vitalik must step aside; as long as he remains, Ethereum cannot attain genuine decentralization. Additionally, many friends consider Proof of Work to be superior to Proof of Stake, even though the latter has become mainstream today, viewing it as a necessary evil or a compromise after weighing options.
I disagree with the above views and will first discuss the former, while addressing PoS in a future article.
A Brief Discussion on Decentralization
Although I openly state that I do not believe Vitalik is an obstacle to Ethereum’s decentralization, I often find myself entangled in related issues, particularly regarding my role at LikeCoin. I cannot compare myself to Vitalik, but on a scale nearly one-hundred-thousand times smaller, I face very similar situations. Many people perceive me as pretending not to be important, yet I frequently engage through writing and advocacy, and the community turns to me for guidance.
Ironically, I often hear friends say things like, “I don’t know what you’re talking about, but I trust you.” Although this reflects genuine endorsement, it also indicates that my arguments have not fully enabled others to understand and make independent judgments, leaving me with mixed feelings and a deep empathy for this issue.
To avoid explaining the “decentralization” of blockchain through academic concepts, we can consider the opposite perspective: if a public chain can be paralyzed or compromised due to natural disasters, government policies, or commercial interests, it is not sufficiently decentralized. In other words, achieving decentralization requires dismantling each potential single point of failure that could destroy the system.
From this perspective, we can evaluate the level of decentralization of individual public chains from various dimensions. At the technical level, this can be quantified by the Nakamoto coefficient, which indicates how many nodes must be controlled to halt the entire chain. For example, the Nakamoto coefficient of Binance Chain is 7, meaning that controlling the largest 7 nodes would give one the power to manipulate Binance Chain at will. It is important to note that quantifiable indicators can only provide a rough estimate. Imagine if the top 7 nodes all belonged to the same company or were located in the same data center, versus if those nodes were spread across 7 continents and managed by unrelated stakeholders; the degree of decentralization would be vastly different.
Decentralization as a Dynamic Game
Technology is relatively static; if designed well before the genesis block, it can withstand a long period. However, when revolutionary technologies such as quantum computers emerge, systems must be updated to cope. Other aspects, such as government intervention and geopolitical factors, can change more rapidly, requiring timely responses. Decentralization is a long-term game; it is not a “completed tense” but rather a “present continuous tense,” like an ongoing chess match, where we must respond whenever the opponent makes a move.
To mitigate political risks, the primary strategy is to avoid reliance on government funding. This poses a challenge for most traditional NGOs, but many public chains can navigate this, as they do not receive government subsidies in the first place. However, with recent government endorsements of specific public chains and presidential involvement in certain projects, the situation is changing. Vitalik and Solana founder Anatoly Yakovenko have both clearly stated that getting too close to the government contradicts the spirit of decentralization, which is reassuring, though the same cannot be said for other public chains.
Furthermore, any foundation is an organization registered in a specific country. While large projects can choose to register in the costly neutral country of Switzerland, they are still subject to specific legal frameworks, posing a risk of being shut down. Additionally, a foundation could run out of resources and be forced to shut down. The ability to continue operating without basic support is a strict test for public chains. Interestingly, Ethereum, which has often been criticized for its foundation’s poor performance, is one of the few public chains that would not necessarily collapse without a foundation due to its high level of decentralization.
No “Plan B,” Only “Plan Coin”
Recently, Vitalik was interviewed and addressed criticisms of the Ethereum Foundation (EF), explicitly stating that “decentralization does not mean doing nothing.” He argued that the EF should participate in neglected areas to maintain ecological balance, and once these issues are resolved, resources should be redirected elsewhere. Although Vitalik did not explicitly state this, the same logic applies to him as he takes the lead in restructuring the EF.
Friends criticize Vitalik for being overly directive regarding Ethereum, claiming that this view is incomplete. Participation in the community is a responsibility; the community must ensure everyone has the right to voice their opinions, rather than blaming those who express themselves diligently and advocate actively for speaking too much.
For instance, I personally resonate with Vitalik on specific issues; I agree with his analysis after reading his articles, and I do not view him as a deity, nor do I accept everything he says. I am just a small player, surrounded by many talented individuals in the Ethereum ecosystem. I certainly do not blindly follow him; the community has previously rejected some of Vitalik’s proposals. Of course, I cannot deny that there are individuals who idolize him without question, but even if such followers exist, it cannot be attributed to the “idol.” Furthermore, even Satoshi Nakamoto, who has withdrawn from public life (or is no longer among us), has devoted followers; unless one chooses to do nothing from the outset, it is impossible to prevent some from blindly following.
Once, a friend asked me what LikeCoin’s “Plan B” was, implying where the content storage would go in case of extreme situations. I jokingly replied that there is no Plan B, only “Plan Coin.” Plan B is the traditional mindset of preparing for the unexpected, such as regularly storing data on Amazon while also having a Google Cloud backup. While Plan B is acceptable, “Plan Coin” goes further by enhancing system resilience through economic incentives and game theory, creating an anti-fragile ecosystem that can respond to various changes and actively pursue decentralization.
In the context of the founder, to decentralize a project, the Plan B mindset involves being at the center of power while always preparing a successor. In contrast, the more proactive “Plan Coin” mindset views oneself as a risk while responding to various centralization threats, striving to make individual existence as dispensable as possible.
Decentralization does not imply inaction; rather, it involves actively working while avoiding becoming a single point of failure.
p.s. If I weren’t too mercenary, it would surely be a professional hazard, being in the historic city of Athens, under the protection of philosophical sages and deities, only to see ATH ENS.
