The vitality of DeFi comes from freedom, and the underlying investment logic of DeFi

Recently, I read an article in which the founder of the well-known exchange DoDo was interviewed: "Is there too much anti-logic in DeFi? Because you picked the wrong logic template".

I am deeply touched by this sentence. I think not only DeFi, but all blockchain projects must have free and inclusive thinking in their original design. Of course, due to changes in the market environment, its original design intention may eventually be alienated or diluted, but if the original intention does not have the idea of ​​freedom and inclusiveness, its genes are not blockchain.

Why are freedom and inclusiveness so important?Because blockchain and digital currency are a reconstruction of value, this reconstruction process must allow everyone to have the opportunity to participate and benefit. Only a "war" involving the majority of the people can become a vast ocean. To be the force to change the world.

Looking back on the projects I abandoned and rejected over the years, many of them were well-known projects when they came out, but because of some "unfreedom" in their design, I finally abandoned them or rejected them at a glance.

The so-called freedom in the blockchain field, in my opinion, has different meanings at different stages.

In the early stage of public chain competition, that is, in 2017, the so-called "freedom" refers to whether the design of the public chain can allow everyone to have equal opportunities to participate in the structure, that is, whether it is structurally sufficient decentralized.

EOS is a typical case of this period. The 21 node architecture adopted in its design concentrates the power of block packaging in the hands of 21 people, making power monopoly the gene of the system, and making most participants lose the opportunity to participate in the underlying activities of the blockchain. In my opinion, this violates the original intention of freedom and the core value of the blockchain.

So I sold it shortly after buying it.

After the public chain competition has come to an end and DeFi applications are booming again, I think the sign of "freedom" is simpler, that is, whether the project allows everyone to participate without threshold.

I mentioned in the article that when DeFi first emerged last year, NXM was the leading project in the insurance field that everyone was optimistic about. The reason I mentioned it in the article is because the KYC system it set up makes me not as bullish on it as the rest of the public.

In the field of blockchain, especially in the field of DeFi, the vast majority of projects are anonymous, have no threshold, and allow users to participate widely. To do insurance in this field, the insured objects should of course be inclusive, no-threshold, and anonymous projects, and the policyholders of the insurance are also inclusive, no-threshold, and anonymous public.

Faced with such a market, adopting the KYC system and allowing participants to participate in real-name authentication, isn’t that artificially blocking some users and projects from the service scope? No matter how good such a project is in the short term, it must only serve part of the market in the long run, so its potential must be limited.

So when I saw its KYC system, I was very pessimistic. Later, when I started to pay attention to the NFT market, I saw another project that I thought was very good: Nifty Gateway. This project is very attractive to me in terms of design and application scenarios, but when I want to browse its content further, I find that it still uses the traditional Internet registration system, and I have to give an email address and set a password, so I am immediately interested Big minus, giving up on further understanding of it. Even though the project is backed by Gemini Brothers, I'm not interested in it either.

If we carefully review all the projects since the birth of Bitcoin, we will find that,As long as the project that finally grows into a star or giant is free and has no threshold in the initial design.

I think this is not only the original intention that the project party must uphold when designing the project, but also the quality that we must value as investors.