I have discussed at length before across multiple tweets, posts etc. why and how blockchains are fundamentally unfair, here’s a recent post. Permissionless, yes; decentralized, maybe; but fair - no.

Blockchain communities could in theory strive towards fairness and equal opportunity, but this will come at the cost of what makes blockchains unique.

As discussed before, the only way to achieve fairness is through subjective means - taxation laws, welfare programs, antitrust regulations etc. These social contracts cannot be put into code, and will always require human intuition and judgment across our endless complexities.

Blockchain communities are socioeconomic movements first, the blockchains themselves are merely tools to an end. So, it’s quite possible for a blockchain community to implement what could be described as a democratic government, or a cooperative organization. But then does it mean it’s no longer a blockchain community, but rather just a community that uses blockchains as one of its tools?

Or, what if we approach it from the other end? What if a democratic nation state or a cooperative organisation uses blockchains as a tool, do they become a blockchain community?

It doesn’t really matter. At the end of the day, blockchains are merely a tool to achieve the end - socioeconomic coordination - among hundreds of others invented by humankind over the last several millennia. Some communities will find blockchains a more useful tool than others.

What’s important, though, is remembering the unique proposition of blockchains can only be achieved while trading off things like fairness or equality. Which is to say, autonomous smart contracts that live on an ossified blockchain with no governance. This is where blockchains truly shine and offer something new to the world, and the trade-off is worth it for specific usecases. It’s OK to embrace the trade-offs.

Of course, such a pure example is unlikely, and in reality, we’re going to see many different solutions on a spectrum, some with more subjective governance than others. It’s important to note that some crypto communities or organisations will actually be better off with more governance. It’s all about finding the right balance for the specific community free of purist baggage.

I have discussed at length before across multiple tweets, posts etc. why and how blockchains are fundamentally unfair, here’s a recent post. Permissionless, yes; decentralized, maybe; but fair - no.

Blockchain communities could in theory strive towards fairness and equal opportunity, but this will come at the cost of what makes blockchains unique.

As discussed before, the only way to achieve fairness is through subjective means - taxation laws, welfare programs, antitrust regulations etc. These social contracts cannot be put into code, and will always require human intuition and judgment across our endless complexities.

Blockchain communities are socioeconomic movements first, the blockchains themselves are merely tools to an end. So, it’s quite possible for a blockchain community to implement what could be described as a democratic government, or a cooperative organization. But then does it mean it’s no longer a blockchain community, but rather just a community that uses blockchains as one of its tools?

Or, what if we approach it from the other end? What if a democratic nation state or a cooperative organisation uses blockchains as a tool, do they become a blockchain community?

It doesn’t really matter. At the end of the day, blockchains are merely a tool to achieve the end - socioeconomic coordination - among hundreds of others invented by humankind over the last several millennia. Some communities will find blockchains a more useful tool than others.

What’s important, though, is remembering the unique proposition of blockchains can only be achieved while trading off things like fairness or equality. Which is to say, autonomous smart contracts that live on an ossified blockchain with no governance. This is where blockchains truly shine and offer something new to the world, and the trade-off is worth it for specific usecases. It’s OK to embrace the trade-offs.

Of course, such a pure example is unlikely, and in reality, we’re going to see many different solutions on a spectrum, some with more subjective governance than others. It’s important to note that some crypto communities or organisations will actually be better off with more governance. It’s all about finding the right balance for the specific community free of purist baggage.