Subjective Decentralization

Many people declare they want decentralized systems, but their definition of decentralization is often ambiguous and potentially self serving.

Majority rules or minority forks, those are the two options all blockchains face. The debate then moves to do we count hashpower, tokens, staked tokens, or real people.

Do we allow delegation via mining pools, exchange voting, or explicit proxies. Do we consider vote buying legit whether in the form of mining pool subsidies, exchange services, or voting kickbacks?

Do we consider brand / domain ownership a form of centralized control? It was through copyright and trademark that ethereum gained leverage over ethereum classic to effect a contentious fork.

Do we measure decentralization by the distribution of wealth( hash power and stake) or by the delegation of that wealth?

Ultimately property rights and value is defined by community consensus. All token holders are subject to the whims of other people deciding to buy, sell, and vote. We are equally vulnerable to the impact of immigration and birthing rates.

Instead of looking at any one chain for signs of decentralization we should be looking for freedom of movement between chains as the true source of our individual freedom. It is up to each individual to decentralize their political and economic risks. True decentralization starts with the individual.

See more posts on decentralization.

© Daniel Larimer