modular vs. monolithic
The 2023 price rally in Solana has ignited a fiery ‘geeky’ discussion on X between developer communities regarding different blockchain architectures. It is quite common to watch tribes of developers and investors in crypto land fighting over what is the best/right tech, and “modular vs. monolithic” is the current hot discussion. So, it is worthwhile explaining what modular and monolithic are, and why it matters: Modern blockchains store shared state and execute code, and the big question is ...
why I don't believe in monolithic blockchains (from first principles)
Blockchains are computers.Computer history has shown us that when you build more bandwidth, storage, and compute capacity, developers build more demanding apps and use these excess resources.That is why, no matter how many transactions/gas you can process per second, if you’re a successful blockchain, it will never be enough.This will result in one of two scenarios: fees go up, or you need to increase hardware/networking requirements for nodes (which leads to centralization).You can’t solve t...
import, enrich, export - enriching experiences with farcaster social graph
Farcaster offers a new way to enrich crypto financial experiences, whether it’s buying physical items, digital items like NFTs, sports betting, or engaging in prediction markets. This allows for the integration of standalone web applications into a more socially interactive environment.Import, Enrich, ExportOne of the key advantages of Farcaster is its open API, which stands in contrast to other social platforms that often try to lock users in. With Farcaster, you can always export data with ...
Standing on the shoulders of giants 🌌
modular vs. monolithic
The 2023 price rally in Solana has ignited a fiery ‘geeky’ discussion on X between developer communities regarding different blockchain architectures. It is quite common to watch tribes of developers and investors in crypto land fighting over what is the best/right tech, and “modular vs. monolithic” is the current hot discussion. So, it is worthwhile explaining what modular and monolithic are, and why it matters: Modern blockchains store shared state and execute code, and the big question is ...
why I don't believe in monolithic blockchains (from first principles)
Blockchains are computers.Computer history has shown us that when you build more bandwidth, storage, and compute capacity, developers build more demanding apps and use these excess resources.That is why, no matter how many transactions/gas you can process per second, if you’re a successful blockchain, it will never be enough.This will result in one of two scenarios: fees go up, or you need to increase hardware/networking requirements for nodes (which leads to centralization).You can’t solve t...
import, enrich, export - enriching experiences with farcaster social graph
Farcaster offers a new way to enrich crypto financial experiences, whether it’s buying physical items, digital items like NFTs, sports betting, or engaging in prediction markets. This allows for the integration of standalone web applications into a more socially interactive environment.Import, Enrich, ExportOne of the key advantages of Farcaster is its open API, which stands in contrast to other social platforms that often try to lock users in. With Farcaster, you can always export data with ...
Standing on the shoulders of giants 🌌

Subscribe to Idan Levin

Subscribe to Idan Levin
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
<100 subscribers
<100 subscribers
Tim Wu’s The Master Switch lays out this narrative: every major communication technology—from telephony to radio to the internet—goes through a cycle from open and competitive to closed and tightly controlled. Initially, these systems are free-for-alls full of innovation, but over time, powerful actors emerge to consolidate and govern the network’s future. Wu calls this eventual point of control the “master switch.”
We’ve seen this dynamic unfold many times in history. AT&T for example benefited from an open communications environment that allowed it to gain scale and market share, then morphed into a regulated monopoly controlling the entire telephone network. Early radio and television followed a similar pattern, starting as vibrant and creative fields, only to become dominated by a few media giants. The pattern is clear: start open, end closed.
Blockchains seemed to at least start in a similar way to these cycles - open-source enthusiasts that have build innovative tech. The early narrative was all about decentralization, permissionless innovation, and the absence of single points of control. And as the technology matures, it appears we’re not escaping the cycle; we’re replaying it. While Ethereum and other networks remain decentralized at the core, user experience, compliance, and regulation are pushing new entrants to deliver more accessible and trusted pathways, effectively wrapping blockchains in a friendly, integrated environment.
This is where Coinbase steps in. Much like how Theodore Vail worked with the government to cement AT&T’s status (and was also very open and friendly to those building independent telephone networks, they could tap in the long-term lines of AT&T), Coinbase is doing the same with Base, their Layer-2 rollup. By presenting itself as safe, well-regulated, and user-friendly, Coinbase follows the same playbook: become the main entryway into the crypto economy. As Coinbase’s influence grows, they can effectively shape the network’s direction, governance, and standards—claiming the master switch for themselves.
When convenience, trust, and familiarity outweigh the complexities of decentralized alternatives, Coinbase’s Base may become that modern-day master switch.
Tim Wu’s The Master Switch lays out this narrative: every major communication technology—from telephony to radio to the internet—goes through a cycle from open and competitive to closed and tightly controlled. Initially, these systems are free-for-alls full of innovation, but over time, powerful actors emerge to consolidate and govern the network’s future. Wu calls this eventual point of control the “master switch.”
We’ve seen this dynamic unfold many times in history. AT&T for example benefited from an open communications environment that allowed it to gain scale and market share, then morphed into a regulated monopoly controlling the entire telephone network. Early radio and television followed a similar pattern, starting as vibrant and creative fields, only to become dominated by a few media giants. The pattern is clear: start open, end closed.
Blockchains seemed to at least start in a similar way to these cycles - open-source enthusiasts that have build innovative tech. The early narrative was all about decentralization, permissionless innovation, and the absence of single points of control. And as the technology matures, it appears we’re not escaping the cycle; we’re replaying it. While Ethereum and other networks remain decentralized at the core, user experience, compliance, and regulation are pushing new entrants to deliver more accessible and trusted pathways, effectively wrapping blockchains in a friendly, integrated environment.
This is where Coinbase steps in. Much like how Theodore Vail worked with the government to cement AT&T’s status (and was also very open and friendly to those building independent telephone networks, they could tap in the long-term lines of AT&T), Coinbase is doing the same with Base, their Layer-2 rollup. By presenting itself as safe, well-regulated, and user-friendly, Coinbase follows the same playbook: become the main entryway into the crypto economy. As Coinbase’s influence grows, they can effectively shape the network’s direction, governance, and standards—claiming the master switch for themselves.
When convenience, trust, and familiarity outweigh the complexities of decentralized alternatives, Coinbase’s Base may become that modern-day master switch.
No activity yet