Author: Omid Malekan, former Citigroup crypto expert, Columbia Business School professor

Compiled by: Jiahuan, ChainCatcher

In this world filled with power and greed, people have attempted various blockchains. No one believes Ethereum is perfect or all-powerful. It could even be said that Ethereum is the worst blockchain—only that other blockchains are worse.

I spent a lot of time arguing with people in the crypto industry, some of whom are friends. Our biggest disagreement is about how important decentralization is in the core protocol design.

They think it is just one of many important features, whereas I believe it is the only truly important one. They feel scalability is more crucial, while I see it as a side issue. They believe that success depends on business development and partnerships, but I don't see it that way. They think having a lot of money contributes to protocol success, while I believe that too much money leads to failure. They believe permissioned networks can work, and I can only laugh.

The worst part is that they think my view is too idealistic and unrealistic, and that's where our real disagreement lies. I am not someone naive enough to dream of a harmonious future.

On the contrary, I am a cynical person. I have spent a lot of time studying history, how various human institutions have evolved. I have also seen firsthand how powerful organizations can go to great lengths to maintain their power and profits.

My viewpoint is actually closer to Machiavelli (in this context, not relying on institutional goodwill, but starting from the real operations of power and interests). If you truly understand how the real world operates, you will realize that the true idealists are those who are fooled by empty press releases like "tokenization on company databases."

To believe in their rhetoric, you would also have to believe these: profit-driven companies care more about innovation than their own profits; "the innovator's dilemma" does not apply to platform technologies; those executives who are well-acquainted with the status quo and earn seven-figure salaries are all hoping for the status quo to be broken.

I don’t believe that. I believe in the power of corporate inertia and also that only the most decentralized crypto systems could achieve "escape velocity." Everything else will be co-opted, corrupted, until it becomes useless.

A sufficiently large network is always incentivizing its own corrosion

To believe in crypto is, at its core, to believe in the power of incentives. Any blockchain that attracts millions of users and settles trillions of value will always incentivize people to corrupt it. For the biggest companies (and even governments), not attempting to hijack it is foolish. For some of them, ignoring it could even be a matter of life and death.

Ten years ago they claimed Bitcoin was a scam; today they tell you that tokenization only works if you follow their rules—it's the same reasoning. This is very Machiavellian: first, find a way to stop it; if that fails, co-opt it. The only crypto systems that have a chance of surviving this threat are those that have intentionally remained open and neutral from day one.

When we talk about protocol security, we often focus only on external attacks, such as a 51% reorganization attack. But internal takeover is equally, if not more, concerning, especially now that the oldest protocols are quite robust.

Almost every mainstream traditional financial exchange, settlement system, and even social media platform still operating today has a history of internal takeovers. Visa and Mastercard are like this: they were once non-profit alliance networks, similar to today's tokenized consortium chains, but they gradually turned into money-printing machines. Google is the same, evolving from opposing advertisements as the business model for search to becoming the strongest advertising company in history.

This is the trajectory of "platform corruption," the inevitable result of the well-known venture capital S Curve.

For a Layer-1 blockchain, the risk of being taken over is greater than that of any card organization, clearinghouse, or social platform. The reason is that a programmable, multi-asset settlement system has a potential market size larger than most existing networks combined.

A general-purpose L1 can handle payments, securities settlement, social interactions, gaming, art, ticketing, identity, and more. There is simply too much to "corrupt."

Who are the truly naive

From this perspective, the truly naive are those who believe in permissioned networks. These networks are essentially databases that can be dismantled at the push of a button.

Equally naive are those who believe in a "claimed permissionless, yet highly centralized Layer-1," and those who believe in a "claimed open, yet unproven, and with a single sequencer Layer-2." Believing in these systems is akin to believing that individuals are not corruptible, institutions never do evil, and governments always exercise self-restraint.

To be more specific, it’s like believing that Visa wants Mastercard to succeed.

And today, the takeover scenarios I describe are not hypothetical. Take, for instance, the leading provider in the "button-controlled database" space; its CEO is ambitiously looking to "make existing giants and middlemen great again."

In a recent interview, he (referring to Digital Asset CEO) confidently stated that running a closed enterprise network based on Proof of Authority (PoA) is fairer than running an open network based on Proof of Stake (PoS). What is his logic? Joining Ethereum’s consensus costs money (around $60,000 at today's prices), while joining his network only requires potential participants to "prove their value" to existing members.

Coincidentally, Visa is already a participant in this network, while Mastercard is not. How does a company prove its value to its biggest competitor? Or further: what if Visa and Mastercard secretly agree to both join this network but exclude any competitors, thereby permanently solidifying their duopoly position at the top of the Western payment landscape?

How would a fintech company aiming to completely disrupt payments prove its value to such a trillion-dollar giant?

By politely asking?

If you were the CEO, what would you do?

If you think I’m being too harsh, it only means you haven’t seriously studied the history of payments and clearing systems. However, you don’t have to believe me. Ask small to medium-sized banks and credit unions in the U.S. how they view The Clearing House, a clearing institution controlled by large commercial banks; or ask banks that do not hold EWS what they think of the instant payment network Zelle operated by EWS.

Then ask Robinhood how it viewed the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) during the meme stock frenzy; ask digital asset bank Custodia, which sued the court after its Federal Reserve account application was rejected, how it views the Federal Reserve; then ask fintech companies how they view the instant payment system FedNow launched by the Federal Reserve.

Now, imagine yourself as the CEO of a highly profitable payment company, with high fees and high gross margins. You got to where you are because you understand how crucial it is to "control the network”—it's almost ingrained in your bones.

Before crypto emerged, all settlement systems were either operated by existing giants or by the government (which is also influenced by these giants). Now, there is something new called "public permissionless blockchain," and some exceptionally smart people tell you: it’s a settlement system that no one can control, yet everyone can use. "Everyone" includes your biggest competitors and any startups that view your profit margins as their opportunity.

Let me quiz you, smart one: what would you do? Would you embrace it with open arms?

Or would you look for some "hybrid" alternative: a solution that claims to provide part of the benefits of blockchain while allowing you to maintain power and pricing authority? Then instruct your PR team to craft a compelling narrative about regulation, responsibility, and illegal usage?

The answer is self-evident. From this perspective, the takeover scenarios I describe are not particularly "Machiavellian"; they are merely routine operations. Competition-oriented companies will seize every advantage they can grasp, and "owning" (or at least "controlling") the means of settlement is that ultimate advantage.

They will certainly attempt to take over every network that allows them to while using fabricated accusations and legal pressure to undermine those that do not permit them.

But this approach won’t work in the long run

However, it must be made clear that in the long run, these tactics will not be effective. The reason is not that these companies are not good at playing this game, but rather that "pseudo-decentralization" is objectively inferior to the status quo. It is neither as efficient as the systems that traditional finance runs on today nor as securely decentralized.

In enterprise networks, cryptography is a burden, and consensus is a farce. Pseudo-decentralization works only in venture capital roadshows and conference roundtables; once it hits the real world, it falls apart.

From my Machiavellian perspective, I can’t help but wonder: do the banks and brokers playing this game actually understand this point? If they do understand, then this embrace of "fake crypto" is a clever smokescreen meant to slow down progress and influence lawmakers.

From a human nature standpoint, this strategy is understandable. These companies are led by older individuals who are closer to the end of their careers than the beginning. They have reputations to uphold and need to fund their luxurious lives in the Hamptons.

However, their delaying tactics will only work for a while. The world will eventually find the most decentralized system, just as water ultimately flows to the lowest point. A large part of the profits in the centralized world comes from the delays and friction of the old ways, and those profits are precisely other people's opportunities.

This is equally very Machiavellian. A fully decentralized settlement system is a sharp tool against competitors, especially when you are not encumbered by their historical technological and business model baggage. Moreover, as trust in existing institutions continues to erode, this process will only accelerate.

Water will eventually flow to the lowest point, and assets will ultimately gravitate towards the safest infrastructure. This is the Nash equilibrium of the world we inhabit. So it’s better to be realistic like me.

Decentralized systems like Ethereum have many flaws, and resisting capture is expensive and troublesome. But it is still better than the corporate and business solutions that are often talked about today. Many idealists will have to learn this lesson at a painful cost.

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。