"The trends of the world, after a long period of division, must unite; after a long period of unity, must divide." This famous quote from the beginning of "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" describes the cyclical nature of historical dynasties. But if we shift our focus to the blockchain and cryptocurrency world, are we also witnessing a replay of this fate? Decentralization was born out of the ideal of countering monopolies and breaking authority, yet in the evolution of PoW and PoS, we have repeatedly seen the resurgence of "centralized power." Small miners from humble backgrounds can no longer operate independently and must rely on mining pools; in the PoS world, the more capital one has, the more they can solidify their voice. At the end of decentralization, there always seems to be a shadow of centralization.

I. The Ideal of PoW and the Reality of Mining Pools

The Bitcoin white paper envisioned a fair world: as long as one has computing power, they can participate in consensus and earn rewards. This is a typical vision of decentralization—everyone is equal, and nodes are autonomous.

As the competition for computing power has intensified, it has become nearly impossible for individual small miners to independently mine a block. Hundreds of T of computing power can only compete against mining pools with tens of thousands of P. Thus, small miners can only aggregate under mining pools, contributing their computing power in exchange for proportionally distributed rewards.

The ideal of PoW's "permissionless" nature also faces economic reality challenges. For a mature PoW network like Bitcoin, independent mining by small miners is no longer realistic; the competition for computing power in the Bitcoin network has reached an industrial scale, requiring massive investments in expensive ASIC miners and cheap electricity, which is beyond the realm of independent competition.

Mining pools have become the new centers of power. They allocate computing power, select blocks, and may even launch "hashrate attacks" in extreme cases. PoW has not moved towards pure decentralization but has instead been swept up by scale effects, restructuring into a "centralized alliance."

II. The Capital Logic of PoS: Coin Power Equals Royal Power

If the inequality in PoW arises from the capital threshold of computing devices, then PoS is a blatant financial capital logic.

In the world of PoS, holding coins equates to power; the more staked, the higher the chances of block production and returns. This means that large capital accounts (exchanges, funds, early whales) inherently possess a stronger compounding effect: the wealthier one is, the more money they can earn, ultimately monopolizing network governance and security.

New entrants find it difficult to achieve leapfrog success, a phenomenon known as the difficulty of producing "noble offspring." This is determined by its inherent economic model, which, aside from being a capital Matthew effect, rewards large holders with more rewards, further increasing their stakes and future earnings, with influence expanding like a snowball.

The high entry capital also restricts the threshold for entry. The re-centralization of staking pools has led to new centralization, with large amounts of capital concentrating in the hands of a few large service providers (such as Lido, Coinbase), making these entities the new centers of power.

This is almost a mirror of capitalist society: it is increasingly difficult for those from humble backgrounds to produce noble offspring, as the poor lack opportunities for accumulation, while the rich continuously leverage compounding to expand their advantages. Decentralization here gradually evolves into the self-replication of capital oligarchs.

III. The Dilemma of Decentralization: Technological Ideal vs. Real Power

Whether it is the pooling of PoW or the capital oligarchization of PoS, both reveal a fact: decentralization is merely the starting point, while centralization is the result of the process.

This is no different from the real world. The capitalist market claims to be a free competition, but it often evolves into oligopolistic monopolies; political societies emphasize the dispersion of power, yet ultimately tend toward centralization. As an experiment in a "digital society," blockchain naturally cannot escape this historical trend.

IV. The "Wealth Creation Machine" of Centralization: The Birth of Foundations, Exchanges, and New Nobles

The ideal of decentralization emphasizes equal participation for all, but in reality, for a new project to be seen by the market, it almost cannot avoid several centralized "wealth creation machines."

1. The Support of Foundations Many public chain ecosystems thrive not through natural growth but through the financial support of foundations.

• Ethereum Foundation: Through funding, hackathons, and research grants, it has shaped the flourishing scenes of DeFi, Layer 2, ZK technology, etc. Without the long-term investment of the foundation, the Ethereum ecosystem could not have formed its current moat.
• Solana Foundation: During the 2021 bull market, it continuously invested in DeFi (Serum), NFT (Magic Eden), GameFi (StepN), rapidly building an ecological matrix for a new public chain with funds and resources.

Without the financial support of these foundations, individual development teams find it nearly impossible to break through in the complex and fierce competition of public chains.

2. The Star-Making Effect of Exchanges In the crypto market, exchanges are the entry points for traffic. Who can get listed on Binance, Coinbase, OKX often determines whether a project can attract global attention.

• Binance: Without airdrops, there are no listings, and without liquidity, this is the liquidity "destination" for every project.
• Coinbase/Upbit Listing Effect: Although the effect is weakening, it is still regarded as a treasure by project parties.
• OKX/Bybit Launchpool: Similarly, through the model of "mining equals listing," new projects quickly gain exposure and user bases.

In ecosystems with a market cap of over $10 billion, small teams have almost no opportunity for independent competition and must rely on the endorsement and sponsorship of exchanges.

3. VCs, Capital Networks, and KOLs Notable VCs (a16z, Paradigm, Yzi Labs, Multicoin, etc.) are not just providers of funds but also narrative creators and amplifiers of discourse power.

• a16z: During DeFi Summer, it heavily promoted Uniswap and Compound, later igniting interest in NFTs and the Web3 concept.
• Yzi Labs: Invested in and promoted the BNB Chain ecosystem; failing to enter the core circle means missing out on ecological support.

Without the spotlight of these capital players, the vast majority of protocols, no matter how good their technology, may be overlooked.

V. The Dilemma of the Humble: Why Is It Harder for New Nobles to Emerge?

Today's blockchain ecosystem superficially appears to be a decentralized open network, but in reality:

• Unequal resource distribution: The money from foundations, the traffic from exchanges, and the capital from VCs are more concentrated within "networks of relationships."
• Control of narrative: Leading capital and exchanges can determine market heat and define what the "next trend" is.
• High sunk costs: A new project, if it lacks sufficient funding (from market makers), finds it difficult to gain market recognition and liquidity, let alone the possibility of being listed.
• Exchanges > Market Makers > Traffic > Project Parties, with project parties at the bottom of the food chain.

This leads to a "decentralized humble background," where ordinary developers or grassroots teams find it increasingly difficult to break through solely based on technology or ideas, ultimately having to rely on the "centralized power network" to grow into "centralized new nobles."

VI. The Final Revelry: When the Exit Is Blocked, Meme Becomes the Only Game

When the serious innovation pathways are firmly controlled by capital and power networks, new entrants from humble backgrounds will naturally seek new exits. Since they cannot compete with giants at the "value investment" table, they turn to another game that seems fairer and crazier—Meme. This is the current phenomenon: newcomers are no longer fixated on white papers and technical narratives but flock to Memes and Pump fun, as they can no longer see a way out in the old paradigm.

The rise of meme coins is essentially a rebellion against the VC-dominated crypto world. It discards complex utility and roadmaps, returning to the purest core of internet culture: community, entertainment, and viral spread. For newcomers who see no hope, Memes become an "obvious" exit. Driven by psychological factors such as FOMO, a sense of community belonging, and the pursuit of the dopamine rush of excitement, this lottery effect attracts a large number of speculators eager for quick profits.

New entrants flocking to Memes and Pump fun is not due to ignorance but a rational choice after seeing the rules of the "centralized noble" game. When the path to class mobility through technological innovation is blocked, diving into a high-risk, high-reward, and more transparent game of Memes becomes the only visible and willing path for them. This is a cry of helplessness and a deconstructive revelry against the old power structure.

Sadly, even Memes have now become products on the dealer's assembly line, wrapped in cultural memes and the trappings of attention economy, becoming a game of capital power.

VII. Reflection: The Historical Cycle of Division and Unity

So, is decentralization merely an illusion? Not necessarily.

Decentralization is not an ultimate state that can be achieved once and for all, but a continuous, dynamic struggle. It is an ideal and a counterforce against the inherent efficiency advantages and natural trends of power concentration in centralization.

It resembles another cycle of the "law of historical division and unity." Just like the dynastic changes in Chinese history: after a long period of division, there must be unity; after a long period of unity, there must be division. Centralization can bring order, efficiency, and security, but it inevitably accumulates rigidity, corruption, and oppression; decentralization releases freedom, innovation, and diversity, but it can also lead to fragmentation and inefficiency.

Technology merely accelerates this cycle and cannot break it. PoW and PoS may just be different phases of the cycle, one emphasizing "computing power democracy" and the other emphasizing "capital order," but both struggle to escape the fate of "the strong getting stronger."

Epilogue

"The decentralized humble background finds it increasingly difficult to produce centralized nobles."

This is not pessimism but a stark recognition of reality. Decentralization is not the end but a cyclical force that challenges the old order, creates new possibilities, but ultimately gives rise to new centralization.

The question is not whether "decentralization will lead to centralization," but whether we can build a more just, transparent, and sustainable order in the next round of division and unity. This may be the true destiny of blockchain.

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。