A History of Centralization

Centralized ecosystems/leadership have caused various community splits. A few notable ones are:

ETH and ETC — Split over immutability

Split over immutability BTC and BCH — Split over block size/transaction malleability

Split over block size/transaction malleability XRP and XLM — Split over business direction

These splits are all very different in their motivations but their ultimate cause is that one group (ETH, BTC, XRP) possessed more decision making power than the other (ETC, BCH, XLM). One group controlled the programmers, the subreddits, the marketers, the websites, the leadership, the forums, the chat channels, and the other did not.

A lack of leverage can lead to misguided decision making on both sides of the split.

The end result is that a community is divided. Resources that once went towards one blockchain now need to be split among two. And a fledgling currency, intended to be used by all, has already started to determine who is not welcome.

It’s not about who is “right”

If some of your favorite groups above are in the majority then maybe you’re just a tad bothered by the insinuation that your decision was made unfairly.

If some of your favorite groups are in the minority then you’re maybe feeling a tad justified that you’re following the right path despite the majority.

Maybe you’re mixed between the two groups and have both feelings (as the author is). But neither of these feelings is correct, there’s no good way to determine what was the “right” course of action. “Right” is subjective after all.

There’s no good way to determine what was the “right” course of action. “Right” is subjective after all.

Sometimes going with the grain is correct, sometimes against is better, in either case sticking to one or the other will ultimately result in a sub-optimal solution.