Blockchain governance is a complex topic, with competing visions of decentralization at play. While Ethereum presents itself as one of the most influential platforms in the crypto space, Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson sees a different picture. According to him, Ethereum is more like a “dictatorship” where Vitalik Buterin concentrates too much power. This criticism, while bold, raises profound questions about the true nature of decentralized governance and its application in the crypto world.
Ethereum: decentralization or disguised centralization?
Charles Hoskinson's accusation is direct: Vitalik Buterin has too much influence over the development of Ethereum, making it a kind of “dictatorship”.
For Hoskinson, true decentralization can only work if no single individual becomes the central figure in such a vast network.
Yet, Ethereum has always promoted the idea of decentralization, where the community and stakeholders have a vital role in decision-making.
Hoskinson compares this situation to a dilemma that the Bitcoin network has avoided. For him, Bitcoin has chosen a simpler path, with an immutable protocol and no self-proclaimed leader.
The community follows a rigid consensus, far removed from the rapid evolution of networks like Ethereum. Bitcoin, while having its own challenges, has not succumbed to the temptation of relying on a centralized leader, Hoskinson says. Ethereum, on the other hand, seems to have gone in the opposite direction, leaning heavily on Buterin’s vision.
It is true that Vitalik Buterin has always been a leading figure in Ethereum's development, but is this a dictatorship? Ethereum supporters point out that the blockchain uses a combination of off-chain and on-chain governance, with the Ethereum Foundation, the community, and major stakeholders playing a crucial role in key decisions.
But as Hoskinson points out, if Buterin were suddenly removed from the equation, what direction would Ethereum take? A question few are willing to answer.
Cardano: A Solution to the Governance Trilemma?
Cardano, Charles Hoskinson's project, has often been presented as a more mature alternative to the governance problems encountered by networks like Ethereum.
However, it is important to approach this statement with nuance. Hoskinson obviously has a personal interest in promoting Cardano, and, like any “mother protecting her baby,” he naturally defends his creation fervently.
The central idea behind Cardano's governance is to solve what Hoskinson calls the blockchain “trilemma”: balancing efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity.
Cardano relies on a system of delegated representatives, elected by the community, to make key decisions.
An organization called Intersect is ensuring transparency in this process, ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of a single individual. This may sound ideal on paper, but implementing these principles raises several questions.
In theory, this model aims to limit the risk of centralization. Hoskinson argues that, unlike Ethereum, Cardano does not depend on a central figure for its evolution. However, it is hard to deny that it remains, for now, a very influential voice within its ecosystem.
Although he claims that its importance fades over time, this transition is not yet complete. Time will tell if Cardano can truly function without the supervision of its creator.
Additionally, it is worth highlighting that Cardano's transition to fully decentralized governance is still ongoing.
Hoskinson insists that, alive or dead, the project will continue to progress through its internal structures. However, this statement should be taken with a grain of salt: such complete decentralization is difficult to achieve in practice, and other blockchains that have attempted this approach have often encountered unforeseen challenges.
Maximize your Tremplin.io experience with our 'Read to Earn' program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.
