Pindar Wong is the chairman of VeriFi (Hong Kong) Ltd and a member of CoinDesk’s advisory board. An web pioneer, he cobased the primary licensed Web Service Supplier in Hong Kong in 1993.
The next article initially appeared in Consensus Journal, distributed completely to attendees of CoinDesk’s Consensus 2019 occasion.
From ethereum’s conflicted dealing with of The DAO assault to bitcoin’s block measurement “civil warfare,” to the brand new staking, baking and voting fashions for upgrading protocols and electing delegates in newer blockchain initiatives, “governance” has lengthy been a heated matter in blockchain communities
As stress for capability upgrades has grown together with blockchain adoption, communities have struggled to seek out an idealized “decentralized governance” mannequin for agreeing on code adjustments and software program forks. The issue is comprehensible. In spite of everything, the very concept of blockchain governance can look like a paradox wrapped in a dilemma. The paradox: “How do you alter one thing which is ‘immutable’?”
The dilemma: “In selecting between a tough fork or mushy fork: do you cut up the very worth of utilizing a blockchain within the first place?”
I used to characterize the distinct approaches to those elementary questions as both “on-chain” governance, the place code change negotiations are baked into the protocol’s consensus mechanisms (Decred, DFINITY, EOS, Tezos), or “off-chain” governance (bitcoin, ethereum), the place improve proposals are negotiated offline earlier than being carried out. (Inside the latter
camp I additionally noticed additional division, as some, significantly within the bitcoin group, forswear any type of off-chain governance in any respect.)
I say “used to” as a result of I now not assume it’s productive to deal with this puzzle in purely ‘decentralized’ or ‘governance’ phrases. Studying from the confusion and heartache of the previous 20 years during which governments – the normal, offline form – have struggled to know who “governs the Web,” I feel we have to change the taxonomy.
I counsel substituting “polycentric” for “decentralized,” and “stewardship” for “governance.”
Decentralized governance: ‘Polycentric stewardship’
Whereas authorities took years to know what “Web Governance” meant, billions of hosts and a number of “stakeholders” continued to return on-line worldwide. This meant that, very similar to blockchain expertise, the Web had its personal “scaling points.” We didn’t run out of block weight or block gasoline restrict, however we did run out of numbers to call every community interface
(IPv4 handle exhaustion).
In addressing these challenges, a posh ecosystem of stewardship emerged, virtually organically. The Web’s governance got here to comprise many impartial however interrelated teams, every managing the event of distinctly completely different however equally essential protocols.
The Web Engineering Process Pressure (IETF) stewarded the core web protocols that join hosts on the community (TCP/IP, BGP, HTTPS); the World Broad Net Consortium (W3C) stewarded the requirements for the Net (HTML); and the Web Company for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) stewarded the Area Identify System (DNS), to call however just a few teams.
Right this moment, the Web shouldn’t be a single advanced authorized protocol agreed to by 195 nation states, however a mixture of technical protocols which might be voluntarily adopted by over 70,000 Autonomous Methods(AS): every of which independently operates its personal community.
This complexity within the stewardship ecosystem advanced because the demand for on-line industrial companies generated it’s many scaling challenges. However whereas it meant there can be no single centralized physique chargeable for all of the insurance policies and protocols that Web customers’ depend upon, it did depart a focus of authority inside every group. Every organically advanced its personal
distinct tradition and group norms, its kind, to comply with its distinctive operate and pursue a typical purpose of stewarding the event of particular protocols and coverage requirements.
Collectively, these teams now comprise a “polycentralized” ecosystem, having many facilities. I see blockchain protocol improvement following the same trajectory, with complexity rising as networks grow to be extra layered (e.g. the Lightning Community), as completely different consensus algorithms develop, and as completely different sorts of particular blockchain hardware akin to hardware wallets are deployed. Whereas it’s true that the general blockchain ecosystem is “not centralized” – that it lacks an overarching heart of energy or management – I might argue that it’s already polycentralized.
As such, it’s not useful to fixate on a “decentralized” very best.
Immutability and immunity
How then can we additionally body and simplify reasoning concerning the completely different roles, and sophisticated pursuits, inside a single household of blockchain protocols? For instance, between bitcoin’s a number of stakeholders: builders, trade operators, full-node operators, miners and end-users.
One lesson I realized from serving to organise the 2015 “Scaling Bitcoin” workshops was that considerate protocol designers gave cautious consideration to the general sustainability of an immutable blockchain. They sought to deal with not solely basic computational “area and time” tradeoffs, akin to easy methods to course of an “optimally malicious block,” but in addition extra particular issues with how transaction prices are externalised to the community — for instance, easy methods to handle the unspent transaction output (UTXO) set.
In 2016, I shared my studying on the MIT Bitcoin Expo, however at the moment I nonetheless felt that the tough and tumble of divisive debate and annoying challenges to the community would solely make the bitcoin protocol and group extra strong and proof against future challenges. Drawing parallels with the evolution of organic programs and the herd immunity they develop in response to persistent threats, I concluded that bitcoin’s “antifragile” framework was working.
Sadly, I didn’t then have a extra thorough manner of reasoning what a “wholesome” – i.e. sustainable – community ought to appear to be. There was no mathematical concept for measuring an ecosystem’s sustainability. So, I wasn’t seeing the general image and lacking among the ecosystem’s extra elementary governance challenges.
I now consider that the foundational work of Nobel economist Elinor Ostrom and euro architect Bernard Lietaer, each not too long ago deceased, could level the way in which ahead, to raised body discussions in order that we are able to ask the proper questions on the proper time, measure what ought to be measured and reply accordingly.
Blockchain: A standard-pool useful resource
Ostrom, who handed away in 2012, studied what economists name ‘common-pool assets’ (CPR), akin to pastures for grazing or water for irrigation, all of which danger rivalry and overexploitation if overused. I feel it’s useful to think about blockchain transaction capability, the blockchain itself, and different associated assets akin to computation energy in the identical vein, as CPRs.
Earlier than Ostrom’s analysis, it was thought that the one approach to sustainably steward such assets was both by establishing personal property rights or with authorities regulation. After learning hundred of circumstances of sustainable CPRs worldwide, Ostrom discovered that advanced programs aren’t essentially “chaotic” by default. She discovered sustainable CPRs – in Maine lobster fishermen’s frequent governance of their fishery, for instance — and found a 3rd manner was potential. She recognized eight useful frequent ‘design ideas’ for managing sustainable CPRs, along with two frameworks for reasoning: the Institutional Evaluation and Design (IAD) and the Social-Ecological Methods (SES) Frameworks.
I discover Ostrom’s frameworks fruitful for eager about the tradeoffs between completely different blockchain CPRs: collective bandwidth, reminiscence, disk and computational capability, and so on. Although the mapping shouldn’t be precise, or one-to-one, I consider it may well assist future researchers develop frequent design ideas in blockchain incentive design.
Ostrom’s IAD and SES frameworks are usually not sufficient alone. They may assist us ask the proper questions and examine the sustainability of various blockchain ecosystems, however how does one really measure it for a blockchain community? Right here the late Bernard Lietaer has a lot to supply.
Blockchain: A posh adaptive circulation community
Lietaer, who died earlier this 12 months, co-designed and carried out the European foreign money system’s convergence mechanism, making him, in lots of respects, a key architect of the euro.
He was a financial scholar and wrote 4 books on the way forward for cash. He additionally did pioneering work within the pre-cryptocurrency discipline of “complementary currencies” and in 2017 was named Chief Financial Architect of the Bancor Protocol Basis, which oversees the ethereum- primarily based Bancor liquidity community for token convertibility.
Lietaer’s definition of cash as “an settlement inside a group to make use of one thing standardized as a medium of trade” is amongst my favorites. Most significantly, he and Robert E. Ulanowicz developed a single metric for measuring the sustainability of “advanced adaptive circulation networks,” akin to those who exist in flows of vitamins in nature or monetary flows in financial networks.
The sensible takeaway from a lifetime of learning real-life ecosystems is that there seems to be solely a small “window of viability” between optimizing a sustainable community for larger resiliency and larger throughput. Within the case of a “monoculture in cash,” the implication is that a small handful of various varieties of cash are wanted for optimum sustainability.
This bodes effectively for the broader adoption of cryptocurrencies.
A brand new rulebook
Like a sixth sense, I see ‘lifeless’ governance fashions in every single place, all laid waste by the collision of two worlds: the world of borderless networks, as embodied within the Web, and the world of bordered nations. From Fb’s disaster, which prompted its CEO to cry that “The Web Wants New Guidelines,” to the UK’s Brexit disaster, it’s clear that a new stewardship rulebook is required.
With their capability to mechanically implement guidelines throughout a borderless community, blockchain protocols supply potential options to those deep-seated issues. But when their very own governance challenges stop them from scaling past their present capability limits, that chance will likely be misplaced.
When addressing such challenges, we have to design blockchain ecosystems as sustainable common-pool assets. It’s this third-way method to negotiating advanced competing pursuits – neither chaos nor centralized management – that can permit blockchains to sustainably scale into changing into an important ingredient of humanity’s financial future.
Our future is decentralized not disorganized, our future is polycentric.
Lego blocks picture by way of Shutterstock