Encryption investment principles: beware of hidden and centralized risks

At the end of the day before yesterday, there was a message from a reader:

“The cause of security problems is the centrality of ideas, and the way in which this problem is now addressed is also central”。

This message, "The way to solve this problem is also central," reminds me of the "centreization" trap that is now everywhere in encrypted ecology。

First of all, I would like to stress:

I've been “de-centreized” of opposition to everything, for example, and I have clearly opposed the so-called de-centreization of management teams (e.g., the core development team of the Taifeng) because such de-centrization cannot efficiently move the project forward with the times。

I also do not think that “centreization” and “decentration” must be one good or one bad. When it comes to “de-centreization” and when it comes to “centreization”, it depends entirely on the specific context of its use and the specific context in which it is applied。

But if I go into a very unique new world of encrypted ecology, then all my views will be locked in "decent."。

Why

Because only by decentrization and resistance can creativity be fully generated and the seeds of miracles be fully nurtured and the greatest crystallization of human intelligence be born。

But because human beings have long lived under the control of “centreization” and the mind is filled with seeds of “centreization”, the tacit approach to anything is “centreization”。

That is why it is so difficult to create such a decentralised, censorship-resistant world that there are so many pits and so many problems。

But problems and pits never stop the pace of the encrypted world, nor the process of the encrypted world。

Guided by this idea, when I look at all the layers of the chain, the basic criteria of judgement are clear:

This is the base for the encoded ecology, which must be decentralised and resistant to censorship。

According to this criterion, the trigger finger can count two: bitcoin and the Ether。

SO FOR ALL THESE YEARS, I'VE BARELY LOOKED AT ONE LAYER OF ITS CHAIN. MANY OF THEM ARE WEARING BEAUTIFUL COATS, BUT IN MY VIEW, THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS EOS, WHICH HAS ONLY 21 SUPERNODES。

Yes, many of those chains are efficient and functioning, and even at some stages there is so-called ecological prosperity. But I think that's a disaster they haven't had yet. And once this ecological event like Aave has taken place, it is feared that only bitcoin and Ethera will survive。

For the second tier, I always thought they should be more central. Over the years, however, they have progressed too slowly。

In fact, the ETA has provided a variety of options for a two-tier extension to bind safety to the ETA, such as the Native Rollup, the EEZ framework proposed by Gnosis, etc. None of these programmes has been adopted, and the problems encountered by Aave, as well as many other security problems, will not take place on a two-tiered scale。

In this regard, I look forward to Vitalik ' s hard-core outreach with a more aggressive approach, without fear of double-layered expansion. Because projects with a long-term perspective must recognize that this is a win-win solution, projects without a long-term vision should be phased out without needing to remain。

Otherwise, today the vast majority of these two-story expansions will continue to operate half-shieldedly with their essentially centralized systems. In the end, there will be catastrophic events like Aave。

For various decentrized applications (dApp), because I have been involved in a number of dApp security audits for some time, what I understand is that all but a few of the dApps have left behind the “centrified” back door -- say, to step on the “drive” at a critical juncture, but at the same time, they also introduce the risk of running on a roll。

It won't be revealed when the music and dance level up, and it's hard to say when it comes to a storm。

So I usually use all kinds of dApps, and basically only the top product. I will be able to leave the mountains, no matter how high their promised earnings and how generous their reward is。

Of course, in real life, many ideals and realities are soared. Such collisions can lead to a sometimes painful compromise。

But this compromise must set very high thresholds。

For example, the freezing of hacker assets by Arbitrum through their security committee in the last two days has been highly controversial。

I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO INTRODUCE DAO TO MANAGE THE VOTING THRESHOLD FOR THE SECURITY COUNCIL, FOR EXAMPLE BY AUTOMATICALLY FREEZING THE LARGE ASSETS THAT HAVE COME TO US, THEN ALLOWING ALL ARB HOLDERS TO VOTE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME FRAME, AND FINALLY DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO RELEASE THE FROZEN ASSETS THROUGH THE DAO VOTE。

THIS WAY OF MANAGING THE INTRODUCTION OF DAO IS ITSELF THE “DECENTRE GOVERNANCE” THAT THE ENCRYPTION ECOLOGY HAS ALWAYS SOUGHT。

Aave was caught up this time, causing a lot of problems and generating more thought. But I believe that through this baptism, the real project will be stronger, and the idea of “decentre” will gain more awareness and understanding。

Encrypted ecology will be solidified for some time and then move on。