"Decentralization" in crypto: a faux façade in practice

"Decentralization."

This is what 'decentralization' looks like to me.

Remember the @mirror_protocol proposal where most voted against, but, in the last hour, one addy voted 55% for? It passed.

I've not seen 'decentralization' in crypto.

I've seen the faux façade of it, though.

If you're 'for' decentralization, REALLY be for it.

This means, however, that the stakeholders, eventually, are going to vote in a way that's not aligned to your vision. Decentralization means it's NOT YOUR PRODUCT OR PROTOCOL ANYMORE; IT'S THEIRS. NOT YOURS.

Do you get it?

Insofar as I've seen, nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has ever gotten that message. The devs or the board always owns a controlling voting share.

That, my friends, is NOT decentralization. That is RETAINING AUTONOMOUS CONTROL OF YOUR OWN PROTOCOL.

This may come as a surprise to most, but

hot take: I am all for the creators retaining control of their vision.

hot take: decentralization is like Democracy.

I've never seen either work.

(there's a lot to be said about centralized protocols eff'n around and finding out, too).

I've already pointed out @terra_money, you know, where the CEO just got paid a 4M $USDC bonus for a rekt (again) blockchain.

Now, heeeeeere's @TeamKujira.

It was decentralized? Right?

Then it had the Senate. (REMEMBER THAT??)

Now there was the unilateral rekt.

... and by 'unilateral rekt' I mean a LOT of actions were taken without the consultation of stakers, like, say, oh:

• leveraging more than a prudent amount of $KUJI ("Grown-up defi"? Um, wut?)
• disabling ORCA, so my bids meant what?
• PILOTing $rKUJI
• merging with @THORChain 

Both @terra_money and @TeamKujira both say they were decentralized. Both took unilateral actions that hurt stakeholders, against stakeholder wishes as shown by (lack of) governance.

I'm NOT saying: 'oh, @terra_money, @FantomFDN, @harmonyprotocol, @TeamKujira BAD!' That's for a different discussion.

I am saying if you SAY you are following the decentralized model, FOLLOW THE DECENTRALIZED MODEL, and if stakers vote in not the way you wanted?

Cry me a river, but DON'T YOU DARE doctor the votes. DON'T YOU DARE take unilateral action. Foster REAL staker buy-in and approval.

Takeaway

What does this mean for me? ...and for you?

When I launch my product, I will retain full creative control of that product: vision, direction, execution will all be under my direct control. And I'll be bloody explicit about that.

"Stakers share protocol-profit but do not govern"

C'mon, guyz! Be real!

Let's be real, huh?

You think we, your stakers, are idiots, don't you?

When we OVERWHELMINGLY vote one way, then you come in and BURY that vote with your controlling stake, that's EXACTLY what you're telling us.

Don't think that we don't see that and that we don't know that.

When you set up a Senate, because 'simply, democratized governance is just too chaotic; wah!' then you ignore then disband that Senate, ... what does that tell us, we, your stakers?

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the bullsh!rt. (thanks, 'Good Place.') 

I'm sick and tired of investing my money into a bright-eyed, 'decentralized,' blockchains, four times, and having that money I've staked just evaporate.

That's why, going forward, I'm going to look at the ACTIONS, not listen to the RHETORIC of 'decentralization.'

Takeaway, part II

• As for me, when I launch my protocol, when YOU invest in it, your money's NOT going to be leveraged, but your stake WILL be invested in CLEARLY-DELINEATED assets. You WILL get returns on your investment on the gains the protocol makes.

THAT, to me, is what staking is about.

• And, as for you: do what you will, but here's my plea:

If you're to launch a decentralized protocol, LAUNCH A DECENTRALIZED PROTOCOL with the controlling voting block going to (non-board, non-dev) STAKERS.

If you don't want to do that, DON'T YOU DARE claim to be decentralized.