The issue of maximalism is always relevant to crypto. Whether it’s Bitcoin maxis, or Eth maxis, or decentralization maxis, the debate never ends. Yet, it often seems to center around which form of maximalism wins.
In truth, the issue stems not from the results, but rather the process — the argument shouldn’t be about which will win out, but rather more broadly, why a maximalist approach should win at all.
As witnessed at all stages of human history, maximalism to me is the real problem — because maximalism, of any sort, inherently takes a close-minded approach. And a close-minded approach is by definition antithetical to change, and thus to adaptation, and thus to evolution — which we know based on natural selection and the Theory of Evolution is the key to sustained and robust progress (enter BTC maxi joke here).
In Part I, I poop on Blockchain Maximalism.
Blockchain Maximalism
Let’s start from the top rope — crypto & blockchain maximalism itself is silly.
I am as bullish as anyone else on the impacts of blockchain technology on society, and on potential applications that can be built with smart contracts on the blockchain, but c’mon — people advocating for the pure, 100% decentralized tech stack or payment system unencumbered by any government intervention are living in a fantasy-land.
Even if technology scales successfully, and ends up able to support the necessary bandwidth (which is possible), a government will never willingly cede control of currency for the sake of full decentralization. The best we can hope for is partial decentralization. It doesn’t mean BTC doesn’t have a crucial place in the future, but simply that it won’t ever and can’t ever be the 1:1 substitute for fiat.
It may functionally replace fiat; it may have the technological capability to replace fiat; hell, it may even have the adoption to do so; but a country (the US) whose money remains the reserve currency in the world will fight to its last resource (read: militarily) to remain so. Regulation and laws are merely the first volley in its war against dwindling control.
And as we’ve seen, regulation and laws can prove threatening enough.
We saw USDC blacklisting wallets related to the recent Tornado Cash sanctions, proving that it really doesn’t matter how much your “technology” can theoretically achieve as a decentralized entity — as long as there are humans involved, those humans need to live somewhere and are thus bound by the jurisdiction of a government.
And when one like the US exerts its will, even the most “decentralized” of entities find a way to comply.
The fundamentals don’t change just because we’re using new technology. Threats of prison time carry the same impact whether you exist in the analog world, the digital world, or the blockchain world. Whether you rep geocities or the metaverse.
And laws inevitably end up more powerful than technology because they target the highest-upstream source — the human creator.
The dream of a fully decentralized-only tech stack is also silly. First of all, what does that even mean? Decentralization occurs to a degree, and it exists within a spectrum that runs from 0% to 100%. Bitcoin is closer to the 100% decentralized side (but isn’t perfect either!), then Eth, and then the other blockchain “databases” follow suit, getting more and more centralized.
And then, interestingly enough, follow the other “traditional” databases— because isn’t the extreme version of a Cassandra database, one with many nodes, managed by multiple actors instead of via central control, just a blockchain ledger? Isn’t the most centralized version of a blockchain (cough, SQLana, cough cough) essentially a MySQL DB with more effort? (What difference does it make to the outcome to have many distributed nodes performing consensus if one entity controls all the nodes anyway, right?)
And that’s the point, they all coexist on the same spectrum! There is no “us” and “them”, of true distinction between web2 and web3 on the backend. They are just polarized versions of each other — some towards decentralization and some towards centralization — it’s continuous, not binary or discrete. How could it be, when even within crypto there are varying shades of decentralization?
Therefore, the tech stack maxis, by favoring only “decentralized” stacks, are arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand at what level of decentralization is “enough” for their gatekeeping bitch-asses.
It’s impossible to achieve 100% decentralization, so they should stop pretending that it’s a true realistic aim or some virtuous uncriticizable endeavor beyond reproach — at some level in the process, you’ll need to trust an Infura, or Alchemy, or AWS for Eth nodes, or MetaMask to show you what transaction is being signed, etc. It’s not whether there will be centralization, but rather where it must be injected.
You just have to make tradeoffs and balance the risks.
But by only working with “decentralized-enough” stacks, it willfully neglects all the wonderful technologies of web2, the backend server tech, the insanely efficient and scalable database tech, built up iteratively over decades.
You’re telling me every piece of data should be stored on an expensive blockchain ledger?
As I have said before, decentralization is merely a tool; a means to an end that hopefully prioritizes users. It should not be an ends in and of itself. Therefore, as a tool, there are applications where centralized stacks are better (ie non-sensitive data where speed is a necessity) and there are applications where decentralized stacks are better; and sometimes a hybrid approach is best.
If devs implement elements of a centralized stack because it is better for a certain application, it shouldn’t mean they’re somehow compromised.
This type of mentality is the definition of a solution looking for a problem that critics justifiably point to when shitting on crypto as a whole — when you try to force a technology (blockchain) onto every use case, regardless of its actual applicability or suitability, or consent. (I think I’ll call it “Tech-ual Assault”. Still workshopping the name.)
I mean, who tf would ever be arguing that a hammer is somehow objectively better than a screwdriver in every single situation, from here to eternity? It neglects context. Do I got screws or nails?
But that’s the equivalent of the logical argument from a big portion of both sides in crypto— the no-coiners who can’t envision a single solitary use for decentralization; and the crypto degen devs who can’t envision a single solitary reason for centralization to remain, who refuse to acknowledge any hosting except via IPFS, and can’t accept any web application without full-on HOA-like user token-based governance behind the scenes.
They are mirror images, merely logical reflections born on opposite sides of the debate, equally stubborn and equally irrational in believing blockchain and web2 must be mutually exclusive.
In truth, decentralization is a better tool for some things, and centralization a better tool for other things. It should be celebrated that merely being able to add some amount of decentralization is even possible now. But blockchain doesn’t need to cannibalize every web2 application to still be a transformative technology. And web2 doesn’t need to be seen as “useless” or “obsolete” just because blockchain thrives.
The future of the world is not blockchain only; it is merely blockchain-inclusive.
New to trading? Try crypto trading bots or copy trading
