Chainfeeds Summary:
A potential breakthrough in the 21st-century power dilemma. (Chinese version compiled and published by Foresight News .)
Article source:
https://foresightnews.pro/article/detail/93608
Article Author:
Vitalik Buterin
Opinion:
Vitalik Buterin: When people talk positively about "civil society"—the part of society that is neither profit-driven nor governmental—they often describe it as "composed of a large number of independent institutions, each focusing on different areas." If artificial intelligence were to explain "civil society," it would likely provide similar examples. However, when people criticize "populism," the opposite scenario often comes to mind: a charismatic leader inciting millions to follow him, forming a massive group pursuing a single goal. While populism uses the banner of "ordinary people," its core is the creation of a false image of "popular unity"—often manifested as support for a particular leader and opposition to a "hated external group." Even when criticizing civil society, the argument always revolves around the fact that "it fails to fulfill the mission of 'a large number of independent institutions each focusing on their strengths,' instead promoting a spontaneously formed common agenda," as seen in the phenomenon criticized by "The Cathedral" theory. Pluralism faces a theoretical risk: the "fragile world hypothesis." This hypothesis posits that with technological advancements, more and more actors may possess the capacity to cause catastrophic harm to all of humanity; the weaker the world's coordination, the higher the probability that any particular actor will ultimately choose to inflict such harm. Some argue that the only solution is to further centralize power—but this article advocates for reducing power concentration. Defensive Accelerationism (D/acc) is a complementary strategy that allows for a safer approach to achieving the goal of reducing power concentration. Its core is "building defensive technologies that develop in tandem with offensive technologies," and these defensive technologies must be open and inclusive, allowing everyone to access them—in this way, reducing people's need for centralized power due to "security anxiety." The slave morality holds that you are not allowed to become powerful. The master morality holds that you must become powerful. A comprehensive morality centered on the balance of power might hold that you are not allowed to form a hegemon, but should strive to have a positive impact and empower others. This view is essentially a reinterpretation of the centuries-old dichotomy of "empowerment power" and "control power." To achieve "possessing empowerment power without holding control power," there are two paths: first, maintaining a high degree of "diffusion" to the outside world; second, minimizing the possibility of the system being "used as a lever of power" when building the system. In the Ethereum ecosystem, the decentralized staking pool Lido is a good example. Currently, Lido manages approximately 24% of the total ETH staking on the network, but people's concerns about it are far lower than their concerns about "any other entity holding 24% of the staking." The reason is that Lido is not a single entity: it is an internally decentralized DAO with dozens of node operators and a "dual governance" design—ETH stakers have veto power over decisions. Lido's efforts in this direction are commendable. Of course, the Ethereum community has always been clear that even with these safeguards, Lido should not control all of Ethereum's staked assets—currently, it is far from that risk threshold.
Content source 
