Decentralization: There is a lot of power and promises in this word. But over the years it has become painfully clear that this concept is not receiving due respect, and the consequences can be very dangerous.

We live in a world where DAOs are not DAOs, where independent auditors are not independent, and where public relations departments shine in the fact that some blockchain projects are more central than they might seem.

Emotionally and financially, countless cryptocurrency enthusiasts have bought into decentralized projects – they are filled with the fact that these platforms will make a difference and hope to make lasting contributions that make the world a better place.

Back in September, Glassnode asked if Uniswap is as decentralized as it appears. A “massive share” of the total supply of UNI tokens, 40% more precisely, has been allocated to platform teams and investors, and the only organization with enough UNI to submit a governance proposal is Binance, a central competitor. Glassnode accused the Uniswap team of “somewhat misleading” marketing and added, “The story of the transition to decentralized joint ownership seems a bit unfortunate.”

And in March, the decentralized blockchain Steem fell victim to a “hostile handover” of Tron founder Justin Sun. Major shareholder, Dan Hensley, accused Sun of bribing Steem’s management with “money, power, and users” – and went on to claim that his dominance “made Steem a central security.”

Enough is enough.

Lessons to be learned
To understand why decentralization is dangerous to emerge, here is an example from the real world.

On a boat in the middle of the Nile 10 years ago, my friend suggested. She said yes. We went back to the UK and really wanted to go on vacation to Upper Egypt again.

Soon an unsuccessful uprising began in Egypt. My journalistic background, mixed with the paranoia of the country’s authoritarian government, made comeback risky.

At the time, pro-democracy protesters – most of them young people, secularists, and “callers” – relied on social media platforms and messaging apps, believing they were decentralized enough to give them a fair hearing and an accurate picture of what happened. in Egypt.

Their belief was misplaced.

Even before their movement was suppressed, I wrote an article on this exciting use of technology – unlike the central state-controlled broadcasting. I was naive: Twitter and Facebook are, like everyone else, central organizations. These platforms soon became tools of repression, censorship, and propaganda by the various workforces in Egypt (including the military, Islamic extremists, and foreign powers). ISPs have turned over user data to authorities, Facebook administrators and stickers have lost their freedom, and some have lost more.

The internet was born for free, but the decisions made by the companies centralized this revolutionary technology. Since then, many decentralized blockchain networks, including Ethereum, have suffered the same fate.

Lessons must be learned. We now know that decentralization can decline over time if the problem is not addressed immediately. The only way to do this is to tie the principle of decentralization to the blockchain itself … from day one.

What should decentralization look like
Not surprisingly, the importance of decentralization is lost after years of false promises and disappointments. Crypto enthusiasts have had to live up to their expectations and accept the shortcomings of current governance models.

We need to step back and realize that there are profound flaws in the way many obstacles are created. These mistakes, which often sow oppression and lack of openness, draw us into a central world that we try to avoid.

Take grants, for example. Obviously, these programs have the potential to spread wealth and influence across society, but if you look closely, you will start to see things differently.

As Lyn Rettig wrote recently, grants are often very central. Founders use them to promote existing programs, and funds are often donated to people they already know and trust. This could be breeding ground for bias and cronyism – and it means that the blockchain’s unique argument for “innovating without permission” is lost. He noted that some of the Ethereum Foundation’s biggest grants have been made to close friends of Vitalik Buterin, adding, “I have yet to see a well-structured blockchain grant program.”

It doesn’t have to be this way. What if there were contests instead? This ensures that everyone in the community has their views on how money is allocated – and creates a merit system where tokens are awarded based on talents rather than ties. The results of the vote will be recorded.

Source: CoinTelegraph

LEAVE A REPLY