Let’s talk about Ethereum again— Decentralization doesn’t mean no governance, and it doesn’t mean no decision-making or laissez-faire. Of course, Ethereum can’t operate like a company with a CEO making all the calls, but it also can’t pretend to have no direction. The so-called “laissez-faire” often doesn’t mean no power; instead, it allows implicit power to take over. Over time, implicit power tends to solidify into actual power. Externally, Ethereum often sticks to more abstract expressions: credible neutrality, privacy, settlement layer, etc. These concepts make sense to the core community, but they’re not direct enough for developers, applications, institutions, and the general public. If a system’s main moat is faith, scarcity, and resistance to tampering, then immutability is its advantage. Bitcoin is closer to this state. But if a system’s main moat and foundation are developers, applications, capital, liquidity, and the network effects of its ecosystem, then it must continuously improve and innovate. It can’t rest on historical legitimacy. The cost of user and capital migration in crypto isn’t as high as we imagine.