There is an opinion that the decentralised systems (blockchain is one of them) are democratic and guarantee equality and independence to every participant of a chain. A kind of technological communism.

It lies at the heart of the idea that we can overcome the centralised state and financial institutions and create an entirely new social system, thanks to blockchain.

Is it really so?

Recently I have come across an article by Haseeb Qureshi , where he questions the efficiency of democratic principles in blockchain management.

Let’s go by the numbers. There are two ways of managing blockchain.

The centralised way . System management is delegated to a certain group which maintains its working capacity, debugs all errors and ensures that all chain participants feel good. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero and Zcash work on this principle. However, there is an open possibility of revolt (hard fork) up to the point of creating a parallel blockchain. Something like this has already happened to Bitcoin and Ether.

. System management is delegated to a certain group which maintains its working capacity, debugs all errors and ensures that all chain participants feel good. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero and Zcash work on this principle. However, there is an open possibility of revolt (hard fork) up to the point of creating a parallel blockchain. Something like this has already happened to Bitcoin and Ether. Internal regulation. It works when the right to manage a blockchain is delegated to the majority of chain participants. Tezos, DFINITY, Cosmos and others are regulated accodring to this principle.

In short, the author believes that democracy, that is, internal regulation, is impossible in blockchain. Firstly, because democracy and anonymity are mutually exclusive concepts. And even the Proof-of-Stake principle does not solve the problem. The casting vote right is given to those who hold the largest part of tokens. It works, but it is not democracy, but plutocracy.

There are, of course, more democratic systems, decisions in which are made through a “referendum”. Take, for example, the DFINITY blockchain. If is a serious question arises, the participants can turn to other token holders. Voting is conducted, and the decision is made according to the majority opinion.

It seems fine, but nevertheless the author thinks that blockchain could do without democracy, at least because it does not perform such important functions as state democracy.

State democracy gives those who are in the minority a chance to save valuable resources, that is, minimises their risks and guarantees safety. It is always possible to leave a blockchain or change it for another, unlike a state.

It turns out that all these futuristic ideas of a society that thanks to blockchain will manage to reach independence from the state and financial institutions break upon the question “who controls it?”

Probably, that is why the governments of many countries gradually cease to see cryptocurrencies just as threats and start to think of using new technologies to their advantage.

Even if blockchain is capable of raising the quality of life and improving the existing social institutes, in the end, creating a future society without banks, states and wars by means of just one technology is impossible.

On the other hand, from small beginnings come great things. For example, thanks to blockchain now you can make the gambling industry fairer and safer for players by supporting the FairWin team that is creating a platform and games on blockchain.

Follow us:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/FairwinGambling

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/fairwin.gambling/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fairwin_team/

Chat with us:

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hbardp2

Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/fair-win

Telegram: https://t.me/fair_win