Authors: Bruno Lulinski and David Kerr
Original Title: The Center Will Not Hold: How Decentralization is Reshaping Technology and Governance
In reality, decentralization within blockchain is an evolving concept. At the moment, we must analyze the decentralization of various scenarios to see how it applies to various applications.
In this review article, we will explain:
Decentralization Metrics
Benefits of a decentralized system
Adoption of decentralization by different projects
Decentralized Benevolent Criticism
Decentralization is a concept that has historically described a local governance structure in which the responsibility for planning and decision-making does not rest with a central agency but is instead distributed among its members.
Although the terms "centralization" and "decentralization" were not coined until the 19th century, in association with major political upheavals across Europe, these concepts have been around since the dawn of society. Despite the obvious benefits of decentralization in terms of inclusivity, representation, and individual freedom, human history seems to be a history of learning from centralized power, because it has clear advantages in decision-making efficiency and is more effective in large geographical areas .
(Annotation: The centralization and decentralization discussed in this article mean "centralization" and "decentralization" in the historical context, and are often translated as "centralization" and "decentralization".)
secondary title
It's a mechanism, it's a choice
It should be mentioned that the emergence of blockchain provides opportunities for the development of new systems. These new systems adopt decentralization more effectively. The decentralization mentioned here can be either a member representative governance model or a It is the user who chooses to acquire and develop application functions through the decentralized economy.
While the historical definition of the term, as the opposite of "centralization," still has meaning, the term "decentralization" itself has become synonymous with certain blockchain technologies and plays a role in determining its technical, legal, economic and attention to political functions. Although there is still no single definition of decentralization, the use of the term in blockchain often carries certain characteristics dating back to the original Bitcoin white paper [1].
Although the term "decentralization" is not explicitly mentioned in the white paper, the ability to structure organizations and processes without a "central authority" or "trusted third party" to conduct transactions or interact with others is already in the industry. There is an independent concept inside. Developments in applications of decentralized technologies, regulatory action, legal analysis, economic potential, and political theory provide additional context for the meaning of decentralization as it relates directly to public blockchains and the applications above.
The goal of this article is to help clarify why the concept of decentralization has spawned the broad cryptocurrency community. While a unified, comprehensive definition would undoubtedly provide greater clarity than the current contextual definition, the reality is that decentralization within blockchain is an evolving concept. At the moment, we must analyze the decentralization of various scenarios to see how it applies to various applications.
In this review article, we will explain the different components of decentralization, the benefits of decentralized systems, the adoption of decentralization by different projects, and the well-meaning critiques of decentralization. This article will serve as a TL;DR to summarize the concept of decentralization and its current usage, while providing additional material for those interested in digging deeper into specific areas.
Blockchains are politically decentralized (no one controls them), architecturally decentralized (no central point of failure for infrastructure), but logically centralized (there is a mutually agreed state, the system behaves like a computer).
"The Meaning of Decentralization" [2], author: Vitalik Buterin (co-founder of Ethereum)
This post is not intended to arrive at an all-encompassing definition of the term "decentralization," or as an objective measure of a project's decentralization. Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum, once wrote an article entitled "The Meaning of Decentralization [3]", pointing out the difficulty of precisely defining this term.
Attempts to measure decentralization include: a paper by Miles Jennings on principles and models of decentralization [4], an article by Balaji Srinivasan on the Satoshi coefficient [5]; a paper by Beijing Jiaotong University [6] using various metrics to measure decentralization; and Ketsal’s article [7], describing an open standard for measuring decentralization in blockchains. Given the evolving nature of the field, we will be publishing updated versions of this article as the topic continues to evolve.
“Taking decentralization as an end goal often means aiming at a vague, potentially moving target.”
secondary title
Decentralized Standards for Layer 1 Blockchains
The core value proposition of many blockchains, including Ethereum, is as a trustless infrastructure on top of which developers can build immutable, decentralized applications. While other blockchains are striving to achieve progressive decentralization, Ethereum serves as the first smart contract platform — a native smart contract-enabled blockchain that allows a variety of composable applications to be built on top of the blockchain -'s first-mover advantage and widespread adoption, making it the natural benchmark for layer-one blockchain decentralization.
Coinbase engineer Yuga Cohler even said[9] that Ethereum is about to transition[10] to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, which, if successful, will "prove the feasibility of decentralization as a principle of social organization".
Applications built on top of Layer 1 blockchains inherit some of the decentralized properties of the base layer, but just being built on top of a decentralized layer doesn't mean the application itself is necessarily decentralized.
While applications inherit the immutability and censorship resistance of their base layer by default, each application makes design trade-offs that affect how decentralized an individual application is. In other words, the decentralized infrastructure layer provides a foundation upon which decentralized and centralized applications can work together, with each application and corresponding community independently deciding what trade-offs to make to achieve what they want. Desired state of decentralization.
secondary title
"Less is Beautiful"
The specifics of these two concerns are beyond the scope of this article and are discussed in detail elsewhere. Regarding the centralization brought about by liquidity staking, please refer to this article [13] by Ethereum researcher Danny Ryan and the research of Lido [14], a decentralized staking service provider. For more information on the risks of a single client, please refer to this article by Ethereum researcher Dankrad Fiest [15] and Ethereum.org's content on client diversification [16].
The Ethereum blockchain can be considered a "decentralized enough" infrastructure to use as a basis for discussing decentralization. The Bitcoin blockchain certainly qualifies as "sufficiently decentralized," but by design, the Bitcoin protocol has fewer features embedded in it than Ethereum's more flexible smart contract platform.
The Bitcoin community largely follows the "less is more" ethos, and Bitcoin itself is a poster child for decentralization, as simplicity brings fewer vulnerabilities than more complex protocols. This article will not expand on this argument, except to acknowledge that Bitcoin is sufficiently decentralized and that Bitcoin has been building the Lightning Network [17] to support more decentralized applications.
Ethereum has a much stronger application ecosystem that can discuss varying degrees of application decentralization, but Bitcoin's achievement of creating a decentralized blockchain has paved the way for the entire industry.
secondary title
Different Components of Decentralization
Decentralization is central to some of the value propositions of the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem, so it makes sense to talk about what the term means relative to the domain to which it applies. The elements of decentralization are both discrete (i.e., "Is the project decentralized in this particular domain?"), and relative (i.e., "How does decentralization of one component affect the decentralization the project acquires in another domain?" change?"）。
Since decentralization of one component does not mean the same thing as decentralization of another (although they share fundamental activities that affect other things), projects need to consider each component in order to be able to way to work.
The components of decentralization are grouped into three broad categories, dealing with the effectiveness of a decentralized system along three axes, namely the decentralization of technical, economic and legal power.
As Miles Jennings states in his in-depth article discussing principles and patterns of decentralization [19], "The effectiveness of these decentralized Web3 systems will depend on their security, economics, and information symmetry" — corresponding to the above The three components listed.
Technical Decentralization - The global permissionless infrastructure layer and the applications built on it need a trusted decentralized technical support. The underlying blockchain provides an execution layer for the on-chain components of various applications, but the applications themselves still require their own technical decentralization in the form of permissionless clients, user-owned data ( and the convenience of data migration), as well as the decentralized governance of smart contracts by a large number of participants in the form of a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO).
Questions to ask when considering technology decentralization; how are these systems designed? How to upgrade, if necessary? What programs can support escalated execution (such as Compound's 48-hour timelock [20])? What blockchain underpins the application, and what tradeoffs does the application need to make? Is it easy for a user to "rage out" a system, i.e. can a user exit the system and use (or create) a different method of interacting with the core protocol?
From the point of view of determining the decentralization of the blockchain itself - how many clients are there and how are the clients for miners/validators distributed? How do individual participants verify the authenticity of a given blockchain, and how difficult is it for individuals to participate in that verification process? There are also many ways to consider the technical decentralization of blockchain.
Ultimately, technological decentralization is a necessary foundation for economic and legal decentralization.
Economic decentralization - public blockchains create the opportunity to reimagine the economic interactions between developers and users of an application and the adjacent stakeholders surrounding the application. In the "traditional" pre-blockchain world, companies are incentivized to view their users as a source of value extraction, primarily in the form of user-generated content or corresponding data on end users, which are then distributed between the company and willing advertisers. conduct behind-the-scenes transactions.
Blockchain allows for systems without central leadership, allowing for balanced incentives for developers, contributors, and users of applications. These economically decentralized structures are essentially a new generation of open source software communities, but with built-in, transparent economic models. In an economically decentralized ecosystem, contributors can participate in the value creation of applications while being compensated for their contributions.
Questions to ask when considering economic decentralization; how is the application's underlying token designed and distributed? How is the airdrop designed, and how do early project developers consider it to prevent most project tokens from being too concentrated? How will early investors and project contributors be compensated, and what is the token lock-up for all parties? How is the distribution of the DAO treasury done, i.e. how are the funds allocated to initiatives and/or working groups aimed at furthering the mission of the project?
Decentralization in law - Beyond the technical mechanisms and economic benefits of decentralization, there are issues of regulation and legality, including taxation, liability, ownership, intellectual property, reporting, and privacy. While U.S. securities law is an important area of analysis for determining how decentralized systems utilize digital assets, it is not the only area of law affected by the decentralization of public blockchains.
Although decentralization exists in the current legal system - most notably in the form of general partnerships, decentralized systems are very different from the activities that give rise to existing laws, how well will the default rules set for participation and liability apply, There are major doubts here.
Beyond the superficial similarities to existing rules and laws, decentralized activity via blockchain represents a significant change in concepts such as equity, ownership and control. These differences highlight relationships and responsibilities that differ from activities that give rise to existing laws and regulations, and there is significant uncertainty about what legal issues a decentralized organization that exists on a blockchain will face.
Because of the ability of these activities to generate taxable events and give rise to litigation, it is expected that taxation and liability will soon become as important a matter as securities law when considering legal decentralization.
secondary title
degree of influence
Securities regulation stems primarily from the desire to prevent information asymmetries among market participants. Although there is no clear standard for the concept of legal decentralization, the degree of influence of early project participants in the process of decentralization, as well as the transparency of information among participants, will be the key to determining whether a project meets legal decentralization The essential.
Many have written high-quality overviews on the topic of decentralization from a securities regulatory perspective.
Scott Kupor has written on key regulatory issues for cryptocurrencies [21] and has described the considerations for determining whether a token is a security [22].
David Kerr and Miles Jennings have written a legal framework for decentralized organizations.
Stephen Wink and Shaun Musuka write that complete decentralization [23] is a clear path to avoid securities regulation.
first level title
Benefits of a decentralized system
anti-censorship
anti-censorship
Censorship resistance means that no governing body can unilaterally decide to restrict the actions of another participant in the network. Historically, coordination among humans has relied on some level of trust.
An exchange of goods between two people requires trust that both parties will deliver the goods to the other, and reaching some kind of truce or treaty between conflicting nations requires trust that the other party will abide by the agreed upon treaty.
Immutable code deployed on a decentralized public blockchain lays the groundwork for censorship-resistant, privacy-preserving innovation. These censorship-resistant systems are not entirely unenforceable, but they serve as a necessary foil to the institutions and platforms (governments, social media platforms, etc.) we rely on outside of cryptocurrencies. If the infrastructure layer (the blockchain itself) is not decentralized, it is trivial for a powerful government to shut it down - just find the party in charge of the network and coerce them.
As China's Bitcoin ban demonstrated[24], decentralization makes this difficult, as scrutinizing adequately decentralized systems is beyond the coordination of most governments; just a few months after China's Bitcoin mining ban , several underground mining operations have emerged in China to fill the void left by the ban.
Individuals have also used NFTs to preserve information in the face of authoritarian governments [25]—however, these NFTs still require personal anonymity to avoid direct coercion from governments. Even democratic governments like Canada[26] have recently expressed their willingness to exercise censorship powers by mandating financial institutions[27] to conduct financial scrutiny of some citizens.
power and influence
Other countries, such as Ukraine, effectively used[29] the censorship-resistant properties of public blockchains to fund their defenses when cross-border remittance companies initially restricted[28] money transfers to Ukraine (these restrictions on sending money to Ukraine were later relaxed ).
Tech giants like Apple, Facebook, and Google already wield enormous power and influence, and are drawn, whether they like it or not, into public debates about interactions on their platforms (including their often-controversial decisions[30] how it was formulated). Twitter is often used by governments to communicate directly with voters, and provides a good example of the benefits of decentralization - in 2018, Twitter removed the restrictions that independent developers used to build apps on Twitter. Access to various APIs.
A decentralized system would be censorship resistant to decisions like Twitter. In fact, transparent, unbiased rules of engagement are inherently censorship-resistant, and blockchain-based applications naturally inherit this flavor because code deployed on public blockchains is open-source by default.
Even if Twitter’s former CEO, Jack Dorsey, promised open protocols and long-term neutrality (as he later lamented[31]), the promise of a censorship-resistant Twitter would always fall short over a long enough time frame— This is a natural conclusion of game theory. The concept of open code and allowing users to own their private data is fundamentally antithetical to the business models of companies built on closed protocols that rely on their end users' data to generate economic returns for their shareholders.
Resilience to attacks and decorrelation
According to Vitalik Buterin [32], compared with centralized systems, decentralized systems are more resilient to attacks and less likely to experience unexpected downtime.
Most critically, since there is no sensitive central point of failure for attackers to attack, decentralized systems are generally more expensive to attack - it is impossible for an attacker to directly infiltrate the Ethereum Foundation and press a big red " It is also impossible for an attacker to overpower Buterin and force him to shut down the blockchain (since Buterin does not have that kind of centralized power, despite being the original founder and spec setter) without pressing the "abort" button (since there is no big red button).
At the application level, trust assumptions, key management, and security practices will vary, implying varying levels of resilience to attacks. The resilience of layer 1 blockchains to attacks will still provide a trusted, neutral, permissionless infrastructure for application developers to use.
Decentralized networks also tend to foster duplicative systems, leading to stronger security. Tim Beiko, one of the main coordinators of the Ethereum developer community, recently called this benefit of duplicating systems "uncorrelated failure modes" on Farcaster [33]. The general idea is that multiple solutions, i.e. different client implementations, different approaches to a particular problem, or just different schools of thought, reduce the probability of catastrophic failure across the stack.
(Beiko technically uses "decoration" and "uncorrelated failure mode" to replace the word "decentralization" here, because it is difficult to quantify decentralization. We use "uncorrelated failure mode" as a sufficient de-correlation A benchmark for centralized systems. So, from our perspective, a decentralized system will necessarily have irrelevant failure modes, but regardless, the point of view is the same).
The 2008 global financial crisis is an example of a catastrophic failure under associated risk, in which risks created by the rise of mortgage debt, credit default swaps, and frothy lending practices were inappropriately underwritten by rating agencies up. This highly tangled web of risk led to related failures as homeowners defaulted, which caused lenders to default, which caused counterparties to default, leading to catastrophe.
Underwriting systemically related risks is difficult, and in complex interconnected systems catastrophes can occur. Decorrelating systemic risks through blockchain’s open boundaries can help mitigate these risks and reduce the attack surface.
“If you had asked an average person in 2007. “What would have happened to your life if it turned out that investors were mispricing the superpriority risk of synthetic CDOs constructed from subprime slices?” ’ That person might say, ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about, but I can’t imagine how that set of words would affect me. "But it happens." - Money Stuff[34], May 12, 2022, Matt Levine
Transparent incentive mechanism and decentralized decision-making
While shareholders of public companies can successfully petition the board to include shareholder proposals in the annual proxy statement, the board has some latitude in terms of the proposals that must be included in the discussion[35], and many large technology companies (e.g., Facebook, Snap, and Google) The dual-class share structure gives insiders a supermajority [36] voting power, making it impossible for stakeholders to exert significant influence.
While not exactly a tool, a decentralized decision-making system does enable transparency in governance, potentially improving the fairness and effectiveness of key decision-making processes. There are some well-intentioned criticisms of decentralized decision-making systems, including the necessarily centralized focus required by early project teams, the tragedy of the commons [37], and the apathy of voters that can manifest in these types of horizontally distributed decision-making processes [38 ].
first level title
Criticism of Decentralization
Although occasionally misunderstood as such, a decentralized economy built on public blockchains is not a replacement for all centralized entities. Rather, it is an extension of a structure that will allow decentralized and centralized organizations to interact in ways that were not previously technically feasible or practical. Still, there are some well-intentioned criticisms of decentralization in the context of public blockchains, which are discussed below.
Only fully horizontal structures can be considered decentralized
For some, the idea of decentralization means perfectly non-hierarchical structures, with no structure at all, no guidance or leadership. Some critics of decentralization argue that any influence exerted by a small number of participants in a decentralized system proves that the system is centralized, or that any attempt to create structure preserves centralization.
This statement is used to say that Ethereum is not decentralized [39]. But as this post describes, decentralization comes in various forms, and specific frames of reference must be used to distinguish different types of decentralized systems.
Gitcoin's Kevin Owocki discussed this issue in a Twitter thread [40], noting that decentralization can refer to "decentralized governance through permissionless tokens" rather than "a loose network of chaotic individuals".
In Anti-Capture [41], Spengrah writes: "Confusing decentralization with permissionlessness is one of the most common mistakes in the DAO space." Spengrah discusses the concept of anti-capture, a framework for human networks How to design systems that are resistant to governance capture by bad actors. For projects that cannot be reduced to completely non-human programmatic functions, anti-capture governance is a more reasonable goal.
Consumers do not have sufficient recourse
One concern about decentralization is that a decentralized entity does not provide consumers with recourse. Critics argue that many (or most?) consumers won't care about self-custody of their assets, and many will happily claim that "decentralization" is a virtue of Web3...until their bored apes are steal. If users lose their assets due to malicious actors, how will users get their assets back? How does this process work in a decentralized world?
In March 1933, as the United States was recovering from the Great Depression of the late 1920s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave a speech on the banking crisis and the emergence of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation[42], which provided bank depositors with Up to $250,000 in property insurance. His very first sentence indicated the situation at the time.
"I want to talk to the American people about banking -- to the relatively small number of people who understand the mechanics of banking, but more to the vast majority of people who use banks to deposit money and write checks."
user needs
At the time (and to this day), many people did not understand the inner workings of the banking system. In the near future, many people still don't understand or care about the mechanics of the underlying blockchain, but solutions will exist to meet consumer needs (say, wanting to own boring apes or participate in DAOs) that consumers don't need Learn how the system works in detail. Through an iterative process, society itself learns and improves [43]. The same will happen with cryptocurrencies.
Insurance will become more robust, with procedural coverage for these types of damages, either by users or the protocol itself (or both). The UX of wallets will be improved (see Argent[44] or Rainbow[45] for excellent wallet UXs) such that the burden of self-custody is reduced while still retaining the benefits of self-custody.
In a world with social recovery wallets [46], the fear of losing 24 seed phrases will become irrelevant, and solutions will continue to emerge for those wishing to enjoy the benefits of a decentralized system while still ensuring Reasonable claims for potential assistance in difficult circumstances. Most importantly, centralized organizations will coordinate with decentralized organizations to deliver these solutions in a way that preserves the benefits of decentralized systems, while creating a user experience that suits the wishes of their individual user base.
Centralized entities prove centralization
Centralized entities that exist in the crypto world — such as Celsius, a centralized exchange — are often used to prove that the crypto world is not truly decentralized. This argument aptly targets projects that claim decentralization as a selling point to attract users to a project that is clearly centralized (by any definition), including many of the recent catastrophic events in cryptocurrency (such as Luna and Celsius). These criticisms are not exaggerated.
But, as detailed in this post, a decentralized system is not just a completely horizontally distributed system, instead, there are several individual components to consider when judging a project's level of decentralization. Crucially, the "centralized entity within the system proves the centralization of the system" critique tends to ignore the idea of data portability. Mudit Gupta, Polygon's chief information security officer, calls data portability "the ability to decentralize[47]".
Centralized systems can exist and create value for end users by making it easier to interact with permissionless blockchains, but ultimately, blockchains give users the ability to exit with their own data. If OpenSea, a centralized NFT marketplace, decides to censor a subset of NFTs sold on its platform (by not showing it on the OpenSea UI), or if OpenSea decides to start charging users higher fees, users can simply Stop using OpenSea and move to other NFT marketplaces.
OpenSea doesn't actually hold users' NFTs, it's just a place to display and trade (importantly, a place with a lot of liquidity, which makes the market more efficient and price discovery better, but still, just a place) .
(As a side note, OpenSea recently launched Seaport[48], a decentralized protocol that solidifies its marketplace).
Traditional Internet companies do not give users the flexibility of data portability because they are not incentivized to do so, but blockchain-based applications necessarily have data portability embedded in their operations. While centralized cryptocurrency firms can create efficiencies (such as organizing liquidity, providing customer support, and standardizing the user interface), the ability for users to exit the system provides a significant barrier to the centralized entity's power over the system and, ultimately, its users. restrict.
Ineffective governance and potential oligarchy
The criticism that decentralization will lead to ineffective governance is probably the truest criticism of this ecosystem right now. As of early 2022, the governance of decentralized organizations is largely ineffective - participation is low, and pure token voting, like most decentralized organizations, gradually generates various inherent problems [49 ], likely to generate more oligopoly systems than before.
Fred Ehrsam of Coinbase/Paradigm wrote a forward-looking article on blockchain-based governance systems [50] in 2017, pointing out some benefits and problems of on-chain governance, as well as future approaches. Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether decentralized governance can be as effective (or more effective) than traditional centralized governance systems.
“Only by creating technical systems that provide mechanisms to check the centralization of power, while at the same time building social ideologies that consistently focus on the failure modes of these mechanisms, can we hope to regain success where previous attempts at decentralization have failed.”
refer to
refer to
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentralization-a0c92b76a274
https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentralization-a0c92b76a274
https://a16z.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/principles-and-models-of-decentralization_miles-jennings_a16zcrypto.pdf
https://news.earn.com/quantifying-decentralization-e39db233c28e
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.10699.pdf
https://ketsal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ketsal-Open-Standards-Measures-of-Blockchain-Network-Centralization-October-19-2020.pdf
https://ketsal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ketsal-Open-Standards-Measures-of-Blockchain-Network-Centralization-October-19-2020.pdf
https://blog.coinbase.com/the-merge-and-the-ethics-of-ethereum-dec22a43b363
https://consensys.net/knowledge-base/the-merge/
https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/05/18/will-a-proof-of-stake-ethereum-lead-to-more-centralization/
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1526934223486976000?s=20&t=grxG0BuNDQgiiLUL4ktN_w
https://notes.ethereum.org/@djrtwo/risks-of-lsd
https://research.lido.fi/t/should-lido-on-ethereum-be-limited-to-some-fixed-of-stake/2225
https://dankradfeist.de/ethereum/2022/03/24/run-the-majority-client-at-your-own-peril.html
https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/nodes-and-clients/client-diversity/
https://lightning.network/
https://mirror.xyz/brunny.eth/upIPESej7MjO2rFijwQyx8NBel845fIPV9J5G0Vn4cE
https://a16z.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/principles-and-models-of-decentralization_miles-jennings_a16zcrypto.pdf
https://medium.com/compound-finance/upgrading-compound-governance-c56b55a2996c
https://a16z.com/2019/10/22/mutability-sec-recent-cases/
https://a16z.com/2018/05/04/considerations-for-regulating-cryptonetworks/
https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/crypto-the-pursuit-of-sufficient-decentralization
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/china-is-second-biggest-bitcoin-mining-hub-as-miners-go-underground.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nfts-are-put-to-new-use-in-china-countering-censorship-during-pandemic-11653134403
https://fortune.com/2022/03/15/how-canada-protest-crypto-crackdown-made-the-case-for-bitcoin-self-custody-nick-neuman/
https://www.businessinsider.com/trudeau-canada-freeze-bank-accounts-freedom-convoy-truckers-2022-2
https://www.reuters.com/technology/payments-company-wise-suspends-money-transfer-business-russia-2022-02-28/
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/04/05/how-is-ukraine-using-crypto-to-fund-the-war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1473872142685155333?s=20&t=8lLlHzsZSQmEUn5BE0rBmQ
https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentralization-a0c92b76a274
https://mobile.twitter.com/farcaster_xyz
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthew-s-levine?cmpid=BBD051222_MONEYSTUFF&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=220512&utm_campaign=moneystuff
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.14a-8
https://www.fastcompany.com/90620747/dual-class-voting-tech-ceo-power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
https://orca.mirror.xyz/mBIueg_xTRpzxEfc4ZzSxqVGtDeTgGbZ9aivvY6Xihs
https://medium.com/swlh/ethereum-isnt-decentralized-and-other-myths-ef2d132ee1fe
https://twitter.com/owocki/status/1524069606855303168?s=27
https://spengrah.mirror.xyz/f6bZ6cPxJpP-4K_NB7JcjbU0XblJcaf7kVLD75dOYRQ
https://www.fdic.gov/about/history/3-12-33transcript.html
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07RGR16DL/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
https://www.argent.xyz/
https://rainbow.me/
https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html
https://twitter.com/Mudit__Gupta/status/1529427962998706176
https://opensea.io/blog/announcements/launching-seaport-saving-the-community-millions-in-fees/
https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/08/16/voting3.html
https://medium.com/@FEhrsam/blockchain-governance-programming-our-future-c3bfe30f2d74
https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/liberation-through-radical-decentralization-22fc4bedc2ac
IOS
Android