The following is a guest and opinion post from Adrian Brencin, co -founder of Anoma and Namada.
Decentralization is the most misunderstanding word in the Blockchain industry. It has become a doctrine, a selection box, and a marketing logo. But decentralization is not the award. It is just a tool. The real goal is not decentralization. It is sovereignty – the practical ability of individuals and societies to control the infrastructure, assets and data of their own conditions, without forcing them to trust some of the distant carts of the created or a global network that can be captured or controlled or simply does not connect to the Internet. This is mainly the reason for this space.
Now, we have built these huge global networks –ethereumand BitcoinChoose your choice – you are supposed to be unreliable and cannot be stopped. But in reality, we just turn confidence from banks and states into one global auditor. Even if the network is decentralized, relying on an individual network is not.
This is a fundamental principle in a global misunderstanding of what decentralization means. It is not only decentralization for an individual network, but it is a large group of decentralized networks.
The limits of global networks and the gift of confidence
It may not be a famous opinion, but I think it is clear that Bitcoin will not survive the scenario of World War II.
If you can’t run your infrastructure, if you cannot deal or coordinate when the global network is low or hostile, you are not sovereign. You just rent sovereignty from another person responsible for preserving it. Blockchain you can not publish locally is not actually sovereign. If your community, DAO, or even your country can maintain its own system when cutting cables or the global network is captured, then all decentralization in the world is just theater.
The sovereign networks should be truly flexible, which means that they can be operated locally as required and globally as possible.
In order to achieve this, we need the infrastructure that is behind the payment of local sovereignty and uses universal consensus only when it is already logical. In a multi -polar world – or just a world where the Internet collapses or closed when the cables are cut by a hostile actor – you want the local economy, your institution and your community to continue. If the global network disappears, you will not lose access to your assets, coordination tools, or your ability to handle.
This is not some of the bombing imagination. Things often get worse. Digital infrastructure should be resistant to the conflict by design, not just with hope. If you are forced to rely on one global network to keep your systems alive, you are just one step from the same old central – only with more encryption.
The way most people ethereum use today is dangerously close to a “single global government” for encryption. The origins of each person, their identities, and their ruling are related to one global machine. This is a huge attack, technically and socially. It is also the opposite of what we want: a world that societies can define their own rules, security assumptions, and confidence models. We need heterogeneous confidence.
Not every application, not every society, wants or needs to trust the same group of auditors or the same governance process.
Sovereignty means having your accumulation
If there is one thing in which we have learned the past decade, then this is that the digital infrastructure is fragile. Ethics, government transgression, organizational capture, and even simple old technical failures can download the systems that we believed to be “cannot be stopped.” The only way to build survival systems is to make them virtually flexible. This means that you should be able to run your infrastructure, even if the rest of the world is in a non -connection mode. You should be able to interact with global networks when you want, but never have to trust them in your basic processes.
If your data is general, it is not yours. Privacy is not luxury – or at least should not be. However, it is a prerequisite for sovereignty.
Why should Dao in Buenos Aires or cooperate in Berlin must trust the same auditor who has been appointed like anyone else? Sovereignty means choosing your confidence form. You may want to use the local auditors you know and trust. Perhaps the union with other societies. You may want to run alone. The important point is, you can choose. Not some politicians or founder, not some basis, and not a carp of auditors on the other side of the world.
We already see societies with experience with local currencies, DAOS, and governance models that suit their own needs. This is the future: a mixture of sovereign systems, mutual operation when it is logical, but has never been forced into the global template. If the global network decreases, your local economy continues the tinnitus. If the global network is captured, your community does not lose everything.
True sovereignty means having your stretch, your rules, your destiny.
If we want Blockchain to achieve the goals that we all hope will be able to do so in the long run, we need to stop the decentralization worship for it and start building for sovereignty. The future is not one world professor’s book. It is a world of sovereign actors – individuals, societies and institutions – with the ability to determine their fate. Decentralization is the tool. Sovereignty is the goal.
Let’s build for sovereignty.
Pamphlet Sovereignty versus globalization: Why is the permanent Blockchain promised is sovereignty First appear on Cryptoslate.
