1/ Decentralization: platitude or revolution?
Thread. 👇
Thread. 👇
2/ In a previous thread, I put together a number of examples of the growing conversation about whether decentralized networks could replaced centralized firms as a model for human organization.
3/ But then, of course, the question is... just WTF do we mean when we use the word "decentralized"? Luckily, that’s a topic that has picked up quite a bit in the last month.
4/ @SarahJamieLewis wrote this phenomenal post arguing that decentralization is a vector of multiple layers: Protocol, Politics, and Practical, as she put it.
5/ @nic__carter put together this thoughtful and extensive framework for thinking about the dimensions of decentralization (as shared on a @tonysheng thread about the same topic today)
6/ @Melt_Dem reframed decentralization as a proxy word for the properties that we'd like to see brought to life in the systems we're designing:
7/ In short, there is a growing conversation about what decentralization really means, and what goals decentralization should be trying to accomplish.
But what about its viability? Can decentralized systems ever hope to compete with centralized incumbents?
But what about its viability? Can decentralized systems ever hope to compete with centralized incumbents?
8/ On the one hand, it is an increasingly recognized fact that the simply being decentralized isn't likely to sway the average user to compromise on a sub par product.
9/ Indeed, even with a UX that is on par or better, the real challenge is the incredibly powerful moats that network effects create, locking users in as the network grows more useful and powerful around them.
10/ But networks aren't invulnerable. A few weeks ago, I helped research a post on how decentralized, tokenized projects could in theory eliminate the “Extraction Imperative” that drives network owners to opaquely capture more data & charge higher prices. medium.com/public-market/…
11/ Today, @kjer published the follow up that analyzes 8 risk factors that make internet giants vulnerable to disruption from decentralized alternatives, applying them to four networks: Facebook, Twitter, Apple’s app ecosystem and Amazon’s marketplace. medium.com/public-market/…
12/ What results is something that is neither “rah rah, decentralization changes everything!” nor “blah blah, stop wasting your time on decentralization” but an actually interesting look at specific chinks in the Web 2.0 accidental monopolist armor.
13/ Whether any of these risk factors - which include things like the expected cost of censorship and the alternative value of participating in smaller networks - will actually lead to disruption remains to be seen.
14/ Still, I tend to think that we’re at the beginning of a big wave of incredibly interesting experimentation, and that much of that experimentation comes from a place of sincere motivations. I’m all for promoting smart, nuanced thinking trying new things.
15/ With that in mind, what do you think? Do you agree with these assessments or find these risk factors convincing? Is it possible for a decentralized alternative to actually take down a giant?
