With the new round of reshuffling in the cryptocurrency market, the performance of public chains (such as throughput, latency, and scalability) has once again become a hot topic. Meanwhile, "decentralization," as the core spirit of blockchain, is facing challenges in various projects and communities. The tension between performance and decentralization is increasingly manifesting as a key contradiction in ecological design.
In recent years, several public chain projects have attempted to break through the performance bottleneck of single chains. On one hand, they adopt modular designs: separating data availability, execution, and consensus into different layers, allowing the main chain to take on the role of security assurance, while the expansion layer or Rollup is responsible for high-frequency operations. This approach has been widely adopted in the Ethereum ecosystem. On the other hand, some chains seek extreme performance through hardware optimization and architectural integration — for example, strict hardware requirements for nodes, time-series sorting, parallel processing, etc., to raise the TPS threshold.
Additionally, academia is exploring new consensus mechanisms, such as the recently proposed PoVF (Proof of Verifiable Functions), which claims to achieve thousands of transactions per second while ensuring fairness in participation opportunities. This mechanism utilizes the randomness and unpredictability of verifiable functions and introduces delay buffers to reduce the risk of forks, thus demonstrating the potential for good performance while balancing decentralization metrics in experimental environments.
These practices and research indicate that continuous breakthroughs in performance have become a consensus, but the trade-offs and boundaries behind them have become the focus of community disputes.
However, the improvement in performance inevitably brings it closer to a conflict with the ideal of decentralization. Recently, there has been considerable debate surrounding the decentralized structure of Solana. Lucian Mincu, co-founder of MultiversX, publicly questioned its high proportion of initial token distribution to insiders and its reliance on hardware and cost thresholds, arguing that this severely suppresses the participation of ordinary nodes and the fairness of governance.
From a broader perspective, new research also points out that while the overall cryptocurrency ecosystem tends to become more decentralized in the long term, there is a trend of centralization resurgence at the consensus layer, developer level, and core infrastructure level. This means that even if peripheral projects are open-source and communities are self-governing, the underlying consensus or hub services may still be monopolized by a few entities.
In PoS chains, the concentration of stakes/staking has always been a criticized issue. Recent studies attempt to reduce the extremity of node influence and improve fairness metrics through nonlinear weighting (such as square root and logarithmic transformations).
Moreover, in the path of performance optimization, strategies like "high hardware thresholds" or "dependency on dedicated accelerators" may also create new centralized barriers, preventing general users or small nodes from participating, thus erecting an invisible high wall between performance and decentralization.
Within the community, the philosophical debate between "performance first" and "decentralization first" is becoming increasingly evident. On one hand, some argue that "a truly useful blockchain must be able to support real-world applications"; on the other hand, there are still voices insisting that "any concession to decentralization is a compromise on the foundation of blockchain."
Vitalik Buterin has attempted to find a balance between acceleration and robust governance in his "d/acc" framework, believing that technologies that enhance collective resilience should be prioritized for acceleration while avoiding power concentration. Multicoin Capital criticizes this abstract design, pointing out that bottlenecks and system complexity in actual engineering are often overlooked.
This ideological divergence is not simply a matter of "either/or," but rather a boundary choice in design: under what circumstances can a certain degree of centralization be allowed in exchange for performance improvement? And under what paths should decentralization never be compromised? What kind of governance mechanisms or technological innovations can bridge the gap between the two?
In this structural tension, future routes may present several directions:
Composable intermediate layer solutions: Building bridges between performance chains and main chains, allowing some high-frequency operations to be processed at high-performance layers while complex logic returns to the main chain to ensure decentralization and security.
Hybrid node models: Setting different categories of nodes (full nodes, light nodes, accelerated nodes, etc.) so that ordinary users can still participate in validation while specific nodes undertake high-performance tasks.
Governance and transparency mechanism design: Preventing power concentration in performance optimization paths through reasonable token distribution, upgrade mechanisms, and constitutional restrictions.
Measurable decentralization indicator systems: Establishing standardized quantitative metrics, such as Gini coefficient, Nakamoto index, node coverage, etc., for continuous monitoring of centralization trends across chains.
For chain projects or community participants, it is essential to remain vigilant about decentralization risks while pursuing performance: ensuring full transparency and community consultation regarding token distribution structures, validator thresholds, hardware requirements, and upgrade processes; and choosing paths that allow for fallback or limited compromise in performance exploration, rather than extreme optimization in one go.
In summary, the proposition of public chain development is no longer "who is faster," but rather "how to run fast without collapsing under the contradiction of power centralization" — the game between technology designers, communities, and governors is shaping the next chapter of blockchain.
Related: Is it time to buy the dip? Multiple indicators show $112,000 as a local bottom for Bitcoin (BTC).
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
