Totally! Also people totally underrate how censorship resistance means much more than global regulatory arbitrage. Particularly, in smart contract platforms, censorship resistance implies a truly open-API system.
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1562542183562878976
In smart contract platforms, censorship resistance implies not only the ability to send new transactions, but also the ability to deploy new functionality (smart contracts) natively on top of existing functionality.
This enables truly open API systems, where you can have credible, enforceable guarantees that other people can continue to build on top of your system for perpetuity.
The dominant form of censorship is not state censorship, it is, by far, the censorship of platforms from preventing competitors to build other functionality. Like Facebook or Twitter or Uber or any digital platform existent today!
For example, NBA could launch TopShot on a website instead of on a blockchain, but doing the latter enables arbitrary marketplaces to be built on top, arbitrary lending and borrowing functions to be built, as well as general purpose bridges to move those NFTs out!
This is one reason I am skeptical of the DApp chain hypothesis: if DApp token holders need to govern to vote on what features to allow, they will only allow features that add value to the token (like Facebook stockholders), instead of allowing any feature to be built.
There is an unimaginable level of open innovation to be unleashed on top of censorship resistant platforms. This is why we are building @eigenlayer on top of Ethereum.
#OpenInnovation
#OpenInnovation
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
