When it comes to decentralization, many people immediately frown and exclaim, “Don't bother me. I don't understand technology”. In fact, decentralized mechanisms do not necessarily have to be implemented through blockchain, and even if one is completely ignorant of information technology and doesn't own a mobile phone or computer, it is still possible to practice the spirit of decentralization in daily life.
The most popular Chinese translation of 'Decentralization' is '去中心化’ (“a no-center condition”) , which is quite literal, but since it is the most commonly used, it has become a consensus, and often I can only reluctantly follow its usage. Conversely, 'decentralization' can also be positively translated as '分散式' (distributive), like how I often use '分散式出版' (distributed publishing), describing the effect you want to achieve' rather than the consequences to avoid. This is particularly applicable in a tense society, as some people unnecessarily overthink upon hearing 'decentralization', getting overly nervous and even stirring things up.
Roughly speaking, there are three prerequisites for decentralization:
Decision-making by multiple people or organizations, avoiding autocracy;
Execution by multiple people or organizations, preventing bias and corruption;
After satisfying the above two conditions, the members can still maintain consensus and unity.
In other words, decentralization is ‘無大台，有共識’ ('no dominance, just consensus).
If you find the concept too abstract and theoretical, let us discuss a simple example. Suppose you have two children, Alice and Bob, who both love cake. Then, how do you fairly distribute a cake to them?
The most typical method is of course for the parents to cut and distribute the cake, as parents always equally love each child (?), and would not be partial, even if someone gets a larger share, it is definitely out of necessity and not favoritism. I don't intend to question this assumption, as that's not the focus; the focus is that this is a centralized decision-making and execution in nature. Despite its occasional efficient and stable operation, this centralized system will become problematic when the parents are not there, or start to play favorites, or the children become independent in thought and no longer accept unilateral resource distribution.
So, how to distribute a cake to Alice and Bob in the spirit of decentralization? The answer is simple: have one of them cut the cake and then the other one chooses first.
At first glance, this seems like an IQ question suitable for a parenting forum. However, when you apply this model to the three conditions mentioned earlier, you will find that it perfectly embodies decentralization. Small changes lead to significant improvements. It not only fairly distributes the cake, leaving Alice and Bob without complaints, but also prevents the parents from falling into the dilemma of being the 'bad guy'. Indeed, the beneficiaries of the decentralized cake distribution model are not just the children, but also the parents, unless they need to assert their presence by maintaining orders.
Early we mentioned that '去中心化' is not a good one because the literal translation not only destroys the beauty of Chinese but also easily leads to misunderstandings. In fact, the initial intention of decentralization is not to oppose the 'center' or to confront it directly. Instead, it is for the benefit of the center and the entire system, to avoid too much responsibility and power being concentrated in one joint, which could bring down the whole system in case of an issue.
Let's look at another example involving more people, but with an equally simple solution. Suppose you run a large supermarket with a parking lot, and customers always leave their shopping carts in the parking lot instead of returning them to their original places. What could be done to solve this problem?
A “micro-management enthusiast” might immediately suggest hiring more staff to maintain order, or more advanced solutions like installing cameras everywhere and using AI facial recognition to identify those who don't return their carts. They might then either publicly shame the offenders, deduct points from their membership, or even revoke their shopping privileges for repeat offenders. Based on experiences in our country, we have reasons to believe that this type of centralized governance would be effective. Whether willingly or unwillingly, everyone would be disciplined to act more responsibly, but whether this approach is appropriate and respects privacy and dignity is another question.
On the other hand, as a left-leaning person, I would advocate starting with civic education, posting posters in the supermarket, distributing leaflets, explaining how leaving shopping carts in the parking lot can hinder car movement, cause inconvenience to other customers, and increase the workload of the staff. I always naively believe that education is the foundation of society. As the sense of civic duty improves, customers will naturally become more self-disciplined and return the carts on their own initiative.
If you neither agree with centralized governance nor believe in idealistic approaches, is there another way? Fortunately, there is the distributive mechanism. I'm not talking about developing a supermarket chain and issuing supermarket coins or anything. In fact, the decentralized solution to this problem has nothing to do with information technology and has existed for a long time. You've probably seen it before: adding a small device to shopping carts that requires inserting a coin to use the cart, and you get the coin back only when you return the cart to its place.
This mechanism's most obvious effect, of course, is that to retrieve their coin, customers will return and properly place the shopping carts. However, the amount of a single coin is not much. There are many people who wouldn’t care about losing a small amount like ten or eight dollars, leaving their carts in the parking lot. Wouldn't the parking lot still be filled with carts? Not necessarily. Because every so often, when enough carts accumulate, there will be people who push all the scattered carts back to collect the returned coins. These people might be economically needy homeless individuals (I feel sorry for this stereotype), or they could be bystanders who don’t care about the money but want to maintain order.
If there are people who act out of principle rather than for coins, isn’t this mechanism redundant? Not really. The coin, besides being a tangible economic incentive, also quantifies good deeds, stimulating the human desire to collect, like in a game, bringing a sense of achievement. Many minor economic incentives have this effect. For example, recycling to collect points for gift redemption, shopping mall parking discounts, credit card reward points, etc. The desire these incentives trigger is often much greater than their actual economic value. Such discounts or rewards might be trivial for the well-off driving population, yet they bring disproportionate satisfaction to the busy middle-class life, thus changing decisions and behaviors. Don’t misunderstand me as mocking middle-class consumption behavior; I am emphasizing the irrational decision-making highlighted in behavioral psychology.
Adding a simple incentive like retrieving a coin for returning a shopping cart clearly communicates the objective without the need for words, saves manpower and resources, and brings a sense of participation and satisfaction to the audience. This is the power of a distributive mechanism. Those of us who work with blockchain often talk about 'protocol' mainly to sound cool and knowledgeable. In reality, 'protocol' is neither mysterious nor difficult to understand, and there’s no need to be intimidated by it. Around a set goal, avoid centralizing decision-making and execution in one person. Instead, try to distribute it to everyone, provide economic incentives when necessary, ideally offered by the community itself. If it works, it can become a sustainable protocol, or a distributive mechanism.
Last week, I proposed the UBR Universal Basic Reader Project, funded by myself and the public. Through several independent bookstores, we select and purchase all Hong Kong books published in 2024. Some people think I'm either crazy or just recklessly spending because Bitcoin's price went up a bit. I don’t intend to defend myself on that; whether or not Hong Kong's traditional publishing industry is worth supporting is a matter of principle and aspiration, not suitable for discussion here. However, this is an opportunity to talk about how to support the publishing industry if one chooses to.
The simplest way, of course, is to buy a book from a nearby bookstore whenever you see a good one. In fact, being able to do just that is already great, and no one would criticize it for being too centralized, after all, it's just spending your own money. However, a single person can go fast, but a group can go far. If the action to support the publishing industry can be decentralized, it would not only gather little streams to make a mighty ocean but also benefit a broader audience. Ideally, even if the initiator cannot participate one day, the 'decentralized perpetual motion machine' to support the publishing industry can continue to operate unaffected. This is the original intention of the UBR Universal Basic Reader Project.
Whether an ecosystem is decentralized is often not a binary true or false question, but a matter of degree. It's more like a dynamic process than a static result. To consider how to decentralize, you can first break down the actions to support the publishing industry into five aspects: book selection, purchasing channels, beneficiaries, sources of funding, and storage management, and then think about ways to decentralize each of them.
Through collaboration with independent bookstores, the task of selecting books is dispersed among 3 to 9 stores, diversifying content judgment, values, and taste while maintaining professionalism, which is far better than me selecting books alone. This is the first level of decentralization in the process. Starting with 3 bookstores is just the beginning, and it's not difficult to add more as the project progresses smoothly. It's important to ensure a certain level of decentralization initially, without involving too many stores right away, which would increase communication costs.
Cooperating with different independent bookstores also helps to diversify the beneficiaries and purchasing channels. Although the current funding amount is low and from a single source, causing no controversy over beneficiaries and purchasing channels, expanding the scale in the future would make book selections and channels sensitive topics involving resource distribution. Decentralizing these two aspects in advance can avoid unnecessary disputes.
As for the source of funds, I assume the majority comes from myself, making it quite centralized. If I don't contribute next year, the project cannot continue. However, this is just my pessimistic and pragmatic estimate that almost no one would support it. The UBR project provides a mechanism for public funding participation, and the percentage of funds I will be responsible for will be known early next year. In fact, after announcing the project last week, two readers from Taiwan and Hong Kong expressed their support, exceeding my expectations, which is a good start. So, for the decentralization score of funding sources, out of 100, I would currently say 20. It's failing, but not zero.
Finally, the storage and management of books is the most centralized part of the UBR project. This is because I chose to set aside the issue for now, and it also involves the physical nature of books. Each book is unique and naturally can only be stored in one place. Even if 100 books are divided into 10 parts with each part stored in 10 different locations, it's still centralized as each book is only stored in one place. It's not very decentralized unless multiple copies of each book are purchased, which is obviously impractical at this stage. For now, the decentralization score of book storage and management is zero. However, zero only means highly centralized, not lacking in management. I have specially rented a mini-warehouse to store these books, which not only has 24-hour air conditioning but is also fireproof.
Anyone who has played the game Romance of the Three Kingdoms will remember the pentagon radar chart representing the comprehensive abilities of the generals. For example, Chu Ko Liang, with very high leadership, intelligence, politics, and charm values but a very low force value, his radar chart would look like a pentagon missing one corner, indicating that the area of his comprehensive ability pentagon is reduced due to this deficiency.
Romance of the Three Kingdoms
If we draw a pentagon radar chart for the 5 aspects of supporting the publishing industry project based on the degree of decentralization, UBR would be somewhat like Kwan Wan Cheung, outstanding in 3 aspects but deficient or even very weak in the remaining 2 aspects. It’s not perfect, but its merits outweigh its flaws. Even someone as strong as Kwan had his weaknesses, so we should not expect UBR to succeed instantly. We should start with small steps and, as long as it gets off the ground, we can plan for the future on how to gradually decentralize the aspects that I am personally responsible for.
Let us participate together and turn UBR from a fool's action into a decentralized mechanism supporting the publishing industry.
p.s. you may say I’m a reader, but I’m not the only one.
web3dom - of web3 and freedom is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
