Requirements for Self-Sustainable Blockchain, Part 1

Author’s Comment: I wrote a seven-part article under the title, “Requirements for Self-Sustainable Blockchain,” for past two months or so in Korean and English. I thought I posted them all, as it is supposed to. Today, I realized I did not posted the Part1 and Part2 in English. Nobody noted. Here is the Part 1. Belated, better late than never. Grin.

During the recent full moon holiday, Woohyun Jung (@Atomrigs), the founder of Korea’s Ethereum user community, started a controversy over “empty blocks” regarding Korea’s main blockchain project, ICO. I have already expressed my views on this issue. (

However, there is another issue that Jung pointed out in the midst of the controversy: whether or not ICON is truly a public blockchain. Discussion has stalled because ICON has not responded on the matter, but this issue cannot be dropped. Many other blockchain projects, not just ICON, may have a similar problem.

The details of the issues Jung pointed out are as follows — see the comments in the linked Facebook post: (

It reads:

(1) Currently, who is the block producer for the Mainnet, how many independent entities are involved, and what is their block share? Who appointed them as block producers? Is the governance structure in ICON’s whitepaper working (particularly community representatives)?

(2) If you put together some private chains built for big companies from SI projects, is that a public chain? Is that the philosophy of the (deluxe?) whitepapers or yellow papers? If we create a private chain and make DEX here, is that an interchain? I’m not sure that that’s DEX.

As you can see, the question is “Is ICON a public blockchain as presented through the whitepaper? In a way, I think this is a much more fundamental issue than the issue of correlation between ICON’s number of transactions and project value.

First, the issue of empty blocks can be resolved by proving that a working ecosystem has been established. The second issue, however, is directly linked to the identity of ICON’s project and the community’s overall governance structure, which has the potential to escalate into ethical and moral issues. It’s about the corruption of the fundamental idea behind blockchain, what has plagued projects since Bitcoin started: the problems linked to wealth creation and its distribution — models where there’s an ever-increasing gap between the rich and poor. I am very interested in knowing ICON’s response to this; despite the notion that cryptocurrency is decentralized, such concentration of wealth is a problem that we cannot afford to overlook. Bitcoin and Ethereum, for example, are close to total inequality with a degree of 0.99 when looking at the Gini coefficient. When 100 people work and only one takes all the income, it is completely unfair (Gini coefficient 1.0).

The EcoVerse™ project I am representing has been designed to provide a fundamental solution to this issue, which is supported in the whitepaper. It’s about designing and developing sustainable blockchain systems — made difficult because it requires integrating the technical with multiple fields of study such as philosophy, economics, sociology, psychology, etc.

EcoVerse™ project has decided to take on this challenge and I’m sure that we are moving in the right direction. In the future, we will continue to present and validate our solutions. Please look forward to it.

This article has been translated from its original Korean text, viewable on Steemit: