At the end of the article the day before yesterday, there was a reader comment:

“The reason for security issues is the centralization mindset, and the current method to solve this problem is also centralized.”

This comment, “the current method to solve this problem is also centralized,” made me think of the ubiquitous “centralization” traps in the current crypto ecosystem.

First, I want to emphasize again:

I have always opposed the idea of everything being “decentralized.” For example, I clearly oppose the management team (like the Ethereum core development team) making so-called decentralization efforts, because such decentralization cannot efficiently promote the project's (Ethereum's) progress.

I also do not believe that “centralization” and “decentralization” can categorically be labeled as good or bad. When to be “decentralized” and when to be “centralized” completely depends on the specific use scenario and context.

However, when entering the very unique new world of the crypto ecosystem, all my views will be closely aligned with “decentralization.”

Why?

Because only through decentralization and anti-censorship can creativity be fully unleashed, and only in this way can the seeds of miraculous creation be nurtured, leading to the greatest crystallization of human wisdom.

But because humanity has long lived under the control of “centralization,” our thinking is filled with seeds of “centralization,” which leads to a default centralized mindset in handling any matter.

For this reason, creating such a decentralized and anti-censorship world becomes very difficult, leading to many pitfalls and numerous challenges.

However, problems and pitfalls have never stopped the pace of the crypto world, nor have they blocked the progress of the crypto world.

Guided by this thought, my fundamental judgment criteria for all layer one blockchains are very clear:

This is the foundation supporting the crypto ecosystem, and it must be as decentralized and anti-censorship as possible.

By this standard, I can count them on one hand: Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Thus, over the years, I have hardly looked at other layer one blockchains. Many of them don beautiful exterior cloaks, but in my view, they are essentially no different from EOS with only 21 super nodes.

Yes, many of those chains operate efficiently and have good operations, and even at certain stages, there is so-called ecological prosperity. But I believe that is because they have not yet encountered catastrophic disasters. Once faced with events similar to Aave that sweep through the entire ecosystem, it is likely that only Bitcoin and Ethereum will survive in the end.

As for layer two scaling, I have always believed that they should be more decentralized. However, their progress has been too slow over the years.

In fact, the Ethereum ecosystem has already provided multiple solutions for layer two scaling to securely bind to Ethereum, such as Native Rollup and the EEZ framework proposed by Gnosis. If any of these solutions were adopted, the issues faced by Aave and many other security problems would not occur on layer two scalings.

In this regard, I hope Vitalik will promote it more vigorously and not fear offending a group of layer two projects. Because projects with long-term vision will definitely recognize that this is a win-win solution, and projects lacking long-term vision should be eliminated without regret.

Otherwise, the vast majority of these layer two projects will continue to operate their centralized systems half-heartedly. In the end, they will still face catastrophic events like Aave.

Regarding various decentralized applications (dApps), I had participated in quite a few dApp security audits for a while, and what I found is that except for a few top projects, almost all other dApps have left a “centralized” backdoor --- claiming it is for “emergency brakes” in critical moments, but it also introduces the risk of abruptly running off with the funds at any time.

This won't be exposed during peaceful times, but it becomes difficult to say once encountering stormy conditions.

Therefore, even when using various dApps, I typically only use leading products. For knock-offs, regardless of how high the promised returns or how generous the rewards, I avoid them whenever possible.

Of course, in real life, many ideals will clash violently with reality. Such clashes may lead to painful compromises at times.

But these compromises must have very high thresholds.

For example, recent events where Arbitrum froze the hacker's assets through their security committee have sparked significant controversy.

I believe a better method might be to introduce a DAO for management, setting the voting threshold of the security committee higher. For instance, automatically freezing sudden large asset amounts first, then allowing all ARB holders to participate in voting within a specified timeframe, and finally using DAO voting to decide whether to release the frozen assets.

This kind of management approach that introduces a DAO is also the “decentralized governance” that the crypto ecosystem has always pursued.

Aave has been drawn into this situation, raising many issues and provoking more thoughts. But I believe that after this baptism, true projects will become stronger, and the concept of “decentralization” will gain more recognition and understanding.

The crypto ecosystem will solidify for a while, then continue to march forward.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。