More Blockchain Experts Join the Decentralization Debate Following the SUI Team's Direct Intervention

More blockchain experts are now joining the decentralization debate following the SUI team's direct intervention in the aftermath of the CETUS DEX

Monad co-founder James Hunsaker has responded to earlier comments from Anatoly Yakovenko regarding a blockchain solution being decentralized only if a minority group cannot unilaterally block the majority from making changes or functioning.

Hunsaker highlighted the complexities associated with forking blockchain solutions as a minority group, classifying such groups in terms of stakes in Proof-of-Stake (PoS) blockchains. According to Hunsaker, stakes concentrate highly among a small group of insiders in most chains. Hence, just forking a chain may not be enough for the minority groups, except they are good at “social shaming.”

This continues a discussion between Yakovenko and Hunsaker, both prominent blockchain experts, who have been exchanging views on the PoS blockchain governance system. Yakovenko stated that most forks don’t work because the majority is doing the right thing for the users, not because the minority is powerless to do the right thing.

Moreover, Yakovenko put a lot of weight on the role of users in blockchain networks. According to Yakovenko, it’s the users who ultimately hold all the demands, not necessarily just those with the biggest stakes. He also believes in user coordination since user demand is power-law distributed, meaning a vocal and coordinated user base can influence the chain more than a small group with a large stake. In response, Hunsaker noted how external factors can influence users’ decisions. For instance, he thinks users will stick with forks that Circle and Tether will honor.

It’s worth noting that this discussion, brought on after the SUI team’s decisive actions following the CETUS DEX multi-million dollar exploit and the actions of the majority of the community, is highlighting one of blockchain’s most fundamental, yet often fuzzily defined, elements: decentralization.

Discussions about what true blockchain decentralization means, and what tradeoffs are acceptable, might seem academic until a real-world crisis hits, like the recent CETUS DEX hack. This is where teams are forced to make nearly impossible choices, juggling short-term user protection against governance ethics in a lawless, yet interconnected, online world.

Such debates could continue or resurface under similar circumstances until the blockchain community reaches a consensus or strikes an acceptable balance between governance and security.