The foundation of blockchain technology must be decentralisation, not just an ideal.

In the field of blockchain technology, a story has emerged supporting the progressive shift away from centralised control and towards a decentralised future. However, this tale which is frequently told by those in positions of authority ignores a basic reality about power: it is seldom given up without a fight.

This idea that a centralised ethos can easily give way to a decentralised one is more myth than fact; it's like trying to talk a kid out of holding onto a candy they really want. The goal here is to promote balance and justice, which are fundamental to blockchain, not to paint venture capitalists or early investors as enemies.

I often hear, “We will start out centralized, and we will become more decentralized later.” But I believe this is nonsense!

Power is one of the most difficult things to give up. The French Revolution, a historical occurrence that symbolises the fight to transfer power from an established monarchy to a democratic political system, serves as a striking example of this idea.

The revolution encountered strong opposition from those unwilling to give up power, despite the promises of liberty, equality, and fraternity. This resulted in a volatile time of strife and change. This historical incident is a sobering reminder that if power is gained, it is much harder to give it up than most people realise.

The false sense of being in charge

With early investors and builders enjoying the success their influence has brought about, the grip of those in power becomes more tightly coiled as blockchain ventures develop.

On the other hand, these same individuals launch assurance campaigns at turbulent times, covering up gaps and carefully arranging their departures. This sharp dichotomy exposes a serious weakness in the widely accepted "centralise now, decentralise later" maxim, which severely underestimates the attraction of power and the difficulties involved in giving it up after it has been acquired.

The blockchain revolution is centred on the promise of distributed authority. The reconceptualization of governance in which innovation facilitates the flow of money as well as the empowerment and amplification of several voices (not only those customarily heard in the corridors of wealth). However, this ideal is overshadowed by a worrying reality: a startling concentration in which just 1% of wallets hold more than 80% of total blockchain assets.

Whether or not these resources are part of initiatives that are intended to be totally decentralised, the truth is that venture capitalists (VCs) and early investors frequently own the biggest share of new blockchains since they enter the market first and take on the greatest risk.

This imbalance transcends mere issues of fairness, striking at the very viability of blockchains as engines of innovation and inclusivity.

It’s a travesty that the vast majority of value creation does not come from this 1%, underscoring a critical disconnect. Those who contribute the most to the ecosystem often have the least say in its direction and the smallest share in its success — those early VCs holding all the tokens do provide impact with their initial investments, but their participation usually stops there. And because the protocol’s governance is based on the ownership of the token, the new builders don’t have the weight to make major decisions by the major token holders.

Not only is this glaring disparity unjust, but it also undermines the motivation of developers, inventors, and community members to invest their time, effort, and ingenuity into the ecosystem.

Blockchain ecosystems run the risk of stagnating by excluding the very people who are the source of innovation, since the centralised accumulation of rewards stifles the variety of input and collaboration necessary for breakthroughs andSuch a structure threatens the long-term sustainability and incentive for valuable contributors to remain engaged and invested in these projects. The long-term viability of blockchain technology depends on its ability to foster a genuinely inclusive environment where contributions are recognized and rewarded appropriately, ensuring that all participants have a stake in the ecosystem’s success.

Many of the first-generation blockchains, which have served as the industry's cornerstones up until this point, have, in my opinion, strayed too far from their intended path. They may not be able to go back to true decentralisation since their institutions have been so entrenched around centralization.

This is not to suggest that they will fail quite the opposite. With its naturally multichain future and enormous potential, blockchain technology promises a world full of rich, interconnected networks.

But if we want to fully realise this potential, we have to start over. Although this idea may seem overwhelming, keep in mind that blockchain development is still in its infancy within the larger timetable of technical advancement.

This space's base in open source ideals is what makes it so beautiful. Nearly every blockchain technology is available for research, development, and reuse. This transparency makes it easier for new initiatives to flourish, such as revivals of already-existing chains, each with a different goal and a distinct culture.

Choosing this course involves more than just technological innovation it involves rethinking the values that drive blockchain development. We can reverse the trend by starting new projects with decentralisation as the guiding concept.

This method builds on earlier work rather than simply copying it, taking lessons from past errors to produce blockchains that are genuinely created by, for, and by the people.

To visualize the potential paths of blockchain, consider two atomic reactions: fusion and fission. A blockchain driven by a diverse, invested community is akin to a fusion reactor. It’s efficient, sustainable and produces a continuous outflow of energy. This model represents a decentralized ecosystem where power and rewards are evenly spread, fostering innovation and participation from all stakeholders. The result is a robust and vibrant network, capable of long-term growth and adaptation.

In contrast, a network dominated by a few mirrors the principles of a fission bomb: initially powerful, but ultimately leading to destruction. This reflects a centralized blockchain ecosystem, where concentrated power leads to rapid gains that are not sustainable over time. Such a structure can stifle innovation and lead to a fragile system, prone to collapse.

This analogy underlines the crucial choice blockchain faces between sustainable growth and short-term gains, emphasizing the need for a decentralized approach to ensure the technology’s long-term viability and success.

Decentralisation as a place to start, not only as a pipe dream

Blockchain's progress needs to be based on decentralisation, not just aspiration. It's about democratising power and building a community in which each person's voice counts and their contributions are recognised right away.

At this critical point in time, the future of blockchain depends on our commitment to grounding it in decentralisation from the start. By making decentralisation our guiding concept, we steer clear of a scenario in which blockchain acts as a cornerstone for Let's take advantage of this chance to completely change the game and make sure blockchain technology continues to benefit everyone, not just a select few. By doing this, we help to create a more equitable and inclusive world while also realising the full potential of blockchain technology.

This is a step towards a more just and cooperative ecology as well as a route to technological progress.