Recently, there has been such a hot topic on Weibo.
I think people still have to go to Beijing for a few years in this life. It is best to go to university and study in Beijing. Of course, not only because of its profound cultural heritage and educational resources, but also because it is a city that can enhance the happiness of life.
It means that as long as you have lived in Beijing, you will feel happier in any other city in the future than in Beijing.
A friend who lives in a big country outside is also very puzzled, why so many people have to squeeze in Beijing, big rural areas, high prices, traffic congestion, pressure, people’s hostility, no quality old and small at every turn The high price of 100,000 per square meter…
I think they all make sense. For ordinary individuals, it is true. Beijing is not that friendly, but this is not the whole picture.
For other people, Beijing is paradise. No matter how high housing prices and prices are, they will not leave, or can’t live without, because there are things that other cities don’t have.
Shanghai and Shenzhen are equally developed, and they even develop faster in some areas and lower the cost of living; Chengdu and Hangzhou are developing rapidly in mobile games, e-commerce, and Internet celebrity economy, and the environment is comfortable… But from a macro point of view, they Neither can replace Beijing, nor can it surpass Beijing.
Beijing is the center of Chinese ideology.
Ideology is a paradoxical way of explaining the world. It gives people identity, dignity, and morality. In times of crisis, people can transcend actual interests and unite everyone together.
This is the urban core that cannot be replaced by all modern high-rise buildings.
So if you can understand this, then you can also try to understand the competitive advantages of Ethereum and Layer 2 when faced with new faster and lower cost public chains and various side chains:
In smart contract wars, ideology is the real core competitiveness.
Knowing DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization), you should have heard the book “Starfish and Spiders”. In the author’s opinion, the starfish of the decentralized network is far more powerful than the spider of the centralized structure.
Spider, its intelligence is concentrated in the brain, as long as you remove the spider’s head, the spider will die; and the decentralized organization is like a starfish. The starfish has no head at all. Its intelligence is distributed throughout the body. Once you get rid of it A part of its body, that part may even grow into another starfish by itself, so killing a starfish is much more difficult than killing a spider.
They describe decentralized networks as having five important attributes, one of which is ideology.
What attracts members to join the organization? It’s not just because things can be obtained for free, but ideology, and ideology is the glue for such organizations.
Since the beginning of Bitcoin, in the world of cryptocurrency, there is only one core ideology- decentralization and decentralization.
All altcoins that tried to challenge the status of Bitcoin failed because they were subordinate to the ideology of Bitcoin, and relying solely on computing power, capital, and slogans…cannot be a threat to Bitcoin purchases. The same is true of the public chain battlefield.
“Ethereum killers” are emerging in endlessly, trying to use higher efficiency, lower cost, and user-friendliness as the main line of the narrative to disrupt the advantages of Ethereum, but the efficiency advantage is essentially at the expense of decentralization.
For example, some public chains have strict hardware requirements for becoming verification nodes; some public chain nodes are relatively small; some public chain verification nodes are mostly their stakeholders…
When asked about these public chains’ concerns about decentralization, they usually get answers about pragmatism. In the view of many challengers, balancing extreme “decentralization” and efficiency is the most cost-effective approach. Reducing the number of nodes or centralized validators may not be completely decentralized, but while achieving increased efficiency and low cost, it is also A certain degree of decentralization is achieved, so why not do it?
There is some truth to this argument, but it does not make them win.
Ethereum has something that other public chains cannot promote-a firm commitment to decentralized ideology. At the peak of Ethereum, about 12,000 nodes do not require special hardware to participate, and the Ethereum Foundation does not control most of them.
True believers will not compromise and tolerate decentralization in pursuit of speed and low cost. This uncompromising belief in ideology is driving a lot of innovation.
Because we have seen Layer2, if there is no insistence on decentralization ideology, then Layer2 does not seem to exist. At the expense of decentralization, we can naturally obtain faster efficiency, such as various side chains.
DeFi is also an ideological choice. For example, some purists or the head DeFi protocol refuse to develop any applications on the network outside of Ethereum. This persistence greatly broadens the moat of the Ethereum network.
In the East and West, there are also differences in ideological adherence. Ethereum founder Vitalik said in an interview at the end of last year, “In the United States and Europe, people talk about blockchain and pay more attention to ideology, about freedom, decentralization, and Open source. In Asia, people pay more attention to applications and like to discuss cryptocurrencies and projects that use tokens to do things.”
All new public chains trying to challenge Ethereum must realize that technological progress is actually the easiest, and ideological transcendence is the most difficult . If you only challenge Ethereum based on the ideology established by Ethereum , Then it can only become a “satellite city” in the end to undertake the traffic overflow of Ethereum.
In the same way, it is still difficult for Ethereum to challenge Bitcoin at present, because the entire decentralized ideology was established by Bitcoin. In terms of pragmatism, Ethereum is one hundred times that of Bitcoin, but in terms of ideology , Ethereum is in a subordinate state.
But in addition to the decentralized ideology, Ethereum is still developing its own ideology.
Ethereum is usually defined as a shared world computer, which is an infrastructure. How to organize and apply itself depends on the individual. Ethereum is not an advocate of anarchism and does not engage in business against the country.
In terms of political and economic philosophy, Ethereum is closest to the “radical market” theory of Eric A. Posner and E. Glenn Weir: to expand the market more radically, and to use the power of the market itself to improve the market.
After reading “Radical Markets”, Vitalik was very impressed, and specially wrote “On Radical Markets”. In September 18th, Vitalik and Glenn Weir, one of the authors of “Radical Markets”, jointly published a 40-page article. Thesis “Liberal Activism: General Principles of the Allocation of Social Public Goods”.
Later, in many of Vitalik’s ideas and attempts in the Ethereum ecosystem, radical market theories, such as Hubble tax and QV (quadratic voting), can be seen.
The core rules of the Hubble tax are: (1) Publicize a price for privately-owned property, and submit a tax based on a certain percentage of the valuation every year; (2) Anyone in the market can collect from you based on the public price. Purchase the property in hand.
In this rule, if the bid price is too high, you have to pay more taxes; if the bid price is too low, others can easily buy your property, so the trend price is at a reasonable stage. This is not relying on administrative power, but market game.
In 2019, Vitalik proposed the idea of reshaping the ENS domain name transaction with the Hubble tax. Later on the ETHLondon hackathon, a team used such a demo to win the first place in the ENS reward program.
For example, QV (quadratic voting) is essentially a new kind of political economy discussion: Can the power of the market be used to price voting rights?
If it does not rely on the majority system, that is, one-person-one-vote, which may lead to the tyranny of the majority, and does not rely on easily manipulated methods such as representative systems (similar to specializing in swing states to obtain more electoral votes), can it be introduced into the market? The method, that is, the cost of the first affirmative vote is 1 vote, and the cost of the second affirmative vote becomes 4 votes (2’s quadratic)?
Later, this concept entered the Ethereum ecosystem through Gitcoin’s secondary financing mechanism. Under this mechanism, smaller voters are matched by a large pool to ensure that the distribution of infrastructure financing is diverse and reflects the entire community Willingness.
In general, the radical market affects Ethereum both in terms of worldview and methodology, which is also the key to different Bitcoin’s ideology.
I recently watched “The Age of Awakening” and I feel that the struggle of ideology is the most fundamental struggle. The most tragic disintegration is the disintegration of ideology, and the greatest victory is the victory of ideology.
This is true for countries, cities, and even public chains.
Posted by:CoinYuppie，Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/ethereums-true-competitive-advantage-ideology/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.