Recently, I came across an interview on a16z with a very straightforward theme: Why open networks win. The discussion revolves around a real proposition: If you want to create a global network, what you ultimately need to solve is not performance, but trust.
Christian Catalini is the main subject of this interview. He was a core member of Libra and is the founder of Lightspark. In the recording, he made a rather harsh yet accurate statement: If you want to reform the monetary system, no one will trust your Corp chain. The Corp chain represents the control, upgrade, and profit-sharing rights of the network still concentrated in a single company or alliance, which leads outsiders to assume it will serve internal interests.
Many attribute the failure of Libra to regulation, but Christian offers a different "truth." He points out that while regulatory influence is significant, it is not the only issue. More critically, the market has never believed that a single company can create a "neutral monetary network." Even if you establish an association for governance, or if the CEO operates independently, outsiders will still arrive at the same conclusion: once the dominant player leaves, the network will bleed out. This inference is not specifically aimed at Facebook, but rather at the organizational form of "corporate chains."
As a result, he increasingly favors Bitcoin. He believes that Bitcoin is not the "most technologically advanced" solution; developing on Bitcoin is painful, akin to building a car in space. However, it has an element that is difficult for companies to replicate: neutrality is validated by history. When the founders disappear, it enters a permissionless state, rules cannot be unilaterally rewritten, and governance cannot be captured by a single point. Because of this, it can potentially support high-trust demands like "global value transfer." This logic shifts the discussion from "Is the code good?" to "Who can be trusted?"
In this discussion, Christian also provided a more commercial judgment: the biggest paradox of corporate chains is that you can never convince the "second place" to join your network. For example, if you are the largest payment company, why would the second-largest payment company hand over its lifeline to you? Similarly, if you are a stablecoin issuer, why would your partners believe you won't expand downstream and consume the profit pool? This issue is common in Web2. Once a network can extract profits, the controller has the motivation to maximize those profits.
Therefore, Christian makes a judgment: in the short term, new closed networks may emerge, and there may even be a phase of "corporate chain dominance." But over a longer cycle, money will inevitably flow on open networks.
This discussion also reminded me of an essay I previously wrote, "Web3 Entrepreneurship Discussion: Do Crypto Projects Really Need to Be Open Source?". In that article, I focused on the tug-of-war between two forces: open source can build trust but also brings replication risks; open source is the cornerstone of Web3, but not all teams can bear the cost of complete openness. Additionally, I used the cases of Uniswap and SushiSwap to illustrate that replication is not uncommon, and moats do not solely come from code.
The a16z discussion provides a deeper supplement, redefining the meaning of "open source" as a characteristic similar to a declaration of neutrality. However, in reality, even if a team releases its code, it does not automatically gain neutrality. When the market assesses neutrality, it does not look at GitHub, but rather at control.
So what is neutrality, and how can it be achieved? Portal Labs simplistically breaks it down into three more actionable dimensions:
- Rule Neutrality
Rule neutrality focuses on whether key rules can be unilaterally rewritten. If the protocol's fees, settlement, freezing, permissions, and upgrades can be changed by a few individuals, it is difficult to consider it as public infrastructure. Rule neutrality does not require "completely unupgradeable." It requires that the rights to upgrade have boundaries, and those boundaries can be externally constrained. This dimension answers the question, "Can you change the rules at any time?"
- Access Neutrality
Access neutrality concerns whether the ecological entry points are blocked by you. Whether integration requires permission, whether interfaces can be revoked at any time, whether nodes or validators need approval, and whether key resources are only open to your own are all factors that determine whether the network is a public road or a private park. Access neutrality does not mean there are no thresholds. It means that the thresholds cannot be arbitrarily raised by one party. This dimension answers the question, "Can others freely join?"
- Interest Neutrality
Interest neutrality focuses on whether value distribution can be distorted by control. Can you redirect transactions to your own products through permissions? Can you change profit-sharing at critical moments? Can you give certain partners special treatment? Can you concentrate ecological profits into the company's cash flow? As long as the answer is frequently "yes," the market will classify you as a platform rather than a network. This dimension answers the question, "Will you turn the network into a cash machine?"
In practice, these three types of standards ultimately return to the same Web3 entrepreneurial judgment: Are you creating a "decentralized product," or are you trying to establish a "decentralized network"? The goal of a product is efficiency and control. The goal of a network is reliability and accessibility. Both can coexist, but their priorities differ. What Web3 entrepreneurs really need to do is first determine their positioning, then decide on neutrality and open-source strategies.
In this regard, Portal Labs suggests using a set of simple questions for self-assessment.
Q1: Does your system allow anyone to integrate and deploy without permission?
If the answer is no, you are closer to a product. This judgment can directly filter out a lot of "pseudo-networks."
Q2: Do your key rules have unilateral emergency switches, such as freezing, rolling back, or forced upgrades?
If the answer is yes, you need to explain how these powers are constrained. This question directly corresponds to rule neutrality.
Q3: Does your ecological entry depend on a unique interface or unique ordering provided by you?
If the answer is yes, you need to acknowledge that you are creating a platform. This question directly corresponds to access neutrality.
Q4: Do you allow competitors to make money on your system without being suppressed by your rules?
If the answer is no, you cannot become a public network. This question directly corresponds to interest neutrality.
Once these questions have answers, open source will become a more rational engineering decision. Of course, open source itself also has levels; it should not be framed as a binary choice.
The first level is verifiable open source. The team publicly shares key contracts and security-related code, allowing external audits and reproducibility. This level addresses transparency and can enhance trust, but it does not require giving up all commercial control. Many tool-based products are suitable to remain at this level. This level corresponds to "I want others to believe I haven't done anything bad."
The second level is substitutable open source. The team allows third parties to fork and run, and does not lock critical operational rights within their own hands. This level will bring competitive pressure but also stronger resistance to censorship and sustainability. This level corresponds to "I do not rely on monopolistic operational rights for survival."
The third level is exit open source. The team gradually delegates upgrade and governance rights, making themselves structurally unimportant. Bitcoin is an extreme example, but there are also intermediate states in the real world. Ethereum still requires coordination and review, but its governance resembles a long-term evolving public process rather than a corporate charter. Open networks do not lack governance; rather, the governance of open networks does not belong to a single company.
The discussion of open networks superficially appears to be about whether to open source, but fundamentally it is about neutrality. Once control is centralized, the second place will not join, the ecosystem will not become a public foundation, and the system will ultimately remain in product form.
Therefore, for Web3 entrepreneurs, open source is a choice of product form. How much you are willing to open up, which powers you are willing to relinquish, and how much uncontrollability you are willing to bear will determine whether you are ultimately creating a platform product or attempting to become an open network.
Understanding this point makes the question of open source simpler: you are not deciding "whether to open source," but rather "whether to become a network."
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。
