Having friends come from afar is a joy. Recently, Singapore's weather has been unusually lively and festive. Just as I lay on the deck with friends from all directions, a torrential downpour began. The usually calm Sentosa gave off an overwhelming surge. Maotai (a Chinese liquor) and vegetarianism, floating meditation, and Slashing. Fate, indescribably wonderful. As for Serendipity, whether centralized or decentralized, it may gradually emerge.
Today, let's discuss the "decentralized paradigm." Coincidentally, a friend has been asking me about this. We can start from several different layers. When we are on one layer, the term represents the meaning of that layer. To simplify the overlaying concept, let's rename it 'Paradigm Three' or 'Paradigm 3', simply 'PAR3'.
Firstly, to understand PAR3 from a straightforward technical perspective, decentralized systems, centralized systems, and distributed systems are distinct from each other. Simply put, decentralized systems operate on a premise that nodes, inter-node relationships, and the overall network can be malicious. In contrast, distributed systems don't assume this. In layman's terms, decentralized systems presume nodes might act maliciously, and in response to this assumption, they provide comprehensive solutions integrating computing, cryptography, game theory, and even jurisprudence.
Understanding this difference makes PAR3 simpler. It represents the evolution of the decentralized paradigm. It's somewhat like the open-source protocols of the past, somewhat like public protocols, but also different. Technically speaking, the decentralized paradigm is an intersection of both, making open-source protocols more incentive-compatible and public protocols more neutral, automatic, and durable. This means the protocol's inception, birth, growth, and iteration can all be incorporated into a white paper by its creator. Currently, the classic example is Bitcoin.
Technically, PAR3 redefines how to properly construct a protocol. Within a boundary aiming for minimal trust, it independently or collaboratively achieves the establishment and maintenance of a public protocol. It significantly enhances the opacity of centralized systems and the lack of incentives in distributed systems. In simple terms, it revolutionizes how to initiate, construct, and assess a protocol. It reforms developer relationships, inspiring individual creativity and enhancing collective creative output.
Certainly, from a system standpoint, we indeed need more consistent, secure, and durable decentralized systems in the future. This reform began when protocols started to be written, and the rules of the world began to change through the new logic of code. Evaluating a system using traditional 10x or 100x metrics isn't always the most straightforward. The essence of PAR3 is also to reform such technical system evaluation standards. We can't currently provide a clear function to clarify these standards, but a key understanding might be seeking the system's optimal energy consumption ratio within a certain range of decentralization indices or the system's resistance to a powerful threat, like corruption, in terms of physical and economic energy consumption.
Next, let's discuss the decentralized paradigm from an economic perspective. Actually, when we talk about a model, PAR3 is about the 2D model, which is the '2 developers' model, not the '2B' model.
The difference between the two is clear. In the 2B model, Company A creates a product and, through certain media, communicates its value to Customer B, leading to purchase or repurchase behavior. Companies typically capture this value through stocks. This is the 2B model's closed-loop, improving efficiency between Company A and Customer B, operating within the boundaries of traditional economics. Its boundaries lie within traditional dollars, law, intellectual property rights, corporate systems, securities laws, etc.
The 2D model is an economic one, transcending traditional business constraints. It emphasizes public organizations (like DAOs) initiating transparent protocols, which, based on certain trust-minimal principles, are developed and iterated upon either independently or collaboratively. Contributors to the protocol are incentivized, and the protocol captures value through its underlying economic model, possibly through tokens or other intrinsic means.
The 2D model breaks free from the constraints of the traditional dollar-based economy. It represents an economic model rather than a business one. This distinction is significant. The 2D model transforms the 'customer' group into a 'community'. From a 'user-first' or 'customer-first' approach, it emphasizes 'community-first'. It focuses on collaboration, not just efficiency. Currently, there's no quantitative standard for evaluating the success of a system in the 2D model, but the 'vaguely correct' notion exists. In the 2D model, free from reliance on marketing and sales for product sales, economic construction occurs through developers' freer choices and feedback.
From this perspective, 2D is multi-dimensional, more open, more participative, and more consistent. Contrary to the traditional 2B model, it doesn't push top-down value propositions but encourages bottom-up evolution and emergence. Its openness ensures genuine developer feedback when a protocol is launched, ensuring minimal closed-off and corrupt practices during the economic construction. It emphasizes a fair and equal incentive system, not constrained by traditional alliance systems and hierarchies, addressing conflicts between past and future, elites and ordinary people.
Economically speaking, the decentralized paradigm, from day one, is a novel multi-player non-zero-sum game. From its inception, it removes the obvious zero-sum games between companies and investors, companies and customers, etc. Through this new non-zero-sum gameplay, it enables more equitable, yet realistic, economic collaboration based on contributions.
Again, we return to a cultural level to discuss this decentralized paradigm, and at this time, the term "new community culture" is brought up. PAR3 is a kind of "new community culture," similar to what we in the Chinese community often refer to as the "new family culture." This culture is clearly different from the past, where communities were like Reddit, only used for sharing and exchanging information, without any real consensus. But now, in the culture of PAR3, not only is there a strong relationship, but there is also at least strong or weak consensus.
The difference between PAR3 culture and traditional internet culture or offline community culture is its greater openness and diversity. More importantly, as the saying goes, "Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't discriminate." From day one, the equality of the Bitcoin community was embedded in the code. This foundational culture is unique, somewhat akin to a culture of mutual support. In such communities, we not only listen to what an individual says but are more concerned with the physical and mental costs they've borne.
In essence, the decentralized paradigm, from a cultural and spiritual perspective, resembles a vague definition of the spirit of Satoshi Nakamoto. It doesn't shy away from realism, acknowledging the asset-like nature of each person and the beneficial aspects of the community's greediness. Yet, it doesn't stop at this realism; its motivation is more communal, incorporating public oversight into excessive libertarianism from the very beginning.
By breaking the imposed characteristics of traditional identities, from the moment you connect to this decentralized network, you, in a sense, obtain a new decentralized identity. Regardless of your past, you can join the community as an equal, to be accepted or discarded. Simply put, this new crypto-group culture, within the foundation of recognizing reality, then generates cohesion around a spiritual core. It's a reform against traditional strong relationships without consensus or against traditional strong consensus with superficial relationships. This culture is not judgmental but emphasizes verification: "Don't trust, verify." This mindset is critical in this culture.
Within PAR3 culture, what's important is not "I" but "we." Especially for community leaders, from the very beginning, the mindset, cognitive model, and linguistic system can quickly grasp this point. The community isn't about what I've done or have; it's about what we know, what we don't, what we can achieve together, and where we're headed. Of course, the community may sometimes idolize creative heroes or supermen, but if they're not in sync with the community's values, they'll be discarded. As communities have more choices, it's difficult for them to forsake reality for mere connectivity. Here, the word "Relay" is crucial; communities will opt for what is strongly relevant over what's weakly related.
In conclusion, the decentralized paradigm, in its purest conceptual and ideological sense, tries to balance individual and collective freedom, as well as the dichotomies between humans and machines and between the traditional and digital worlds, through a philosophy of minimal trust. This is quite abstract. If we were to abstract Satoshi Nakamoto into a symbol, his philosophy would be the topic of discussion here. But, focusing on Nakamoto-ism could make the debate overtly political.
It's essential to clarify that when we mention Satoshi Nakamoto, we're referring to the symbolic identity, not the individual. From this perspective, PAR3 overturns conventional ways of engaging with philosophy and the world. It emphasizes individual freedom and also considers the harmony of the whole and the relationships between entities. It emphasizes rational principles while letting this philosophical idea enter real-world experiments. From this perspective, the decentralized paradigm is close to Plato's idea of a philosopher-king, where thinkers, scientists, writers, and artists leave their ivory towers, use new production tools, follow new collaboration rules, and embark on systematic creation from an idea. Simply put, Satoshi Nakamoto made this method of changing the world gentler, more elegant, and simpler, compared to the brutal ways of the past millennia.
From this perspective, PAR3 is logically decentralized, or at least aims to be. Interestingly, while Satoshi Nakamoto created a system that heavily incentivizes individual monetary freedom, it also exhibits strong public and collective features. This system is, logically, collective first and individual second. If reversed, such a system would struggle to scale or survive long term. Many ask why, in a supposedly decentralized world, there are still so many central entities. This is a logical issue, and it's because of Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin that many new centers have emerged. Traditional organizations struggle to escape the confines of self-centeredness. And in reality, aiming for 100% decentralization can trap us in a black-and-white perspective.
PAR3 tries to bridge the gap between inter-subjectivity and individual subjectivity. In other words, the fact that we coexist guarantees our independent existence. This is interesting because PAR3, conceptually, is neither purely individual nor inter-subjective. It seems to exist in a "fuzzy bridge" between past and future, between "I" and "we," and between the spiritual and physical worlds. Many political groups might misunderstand PAR3 as solely emphasizing individual freedom, which would oversimplify its transformative potential.
But, as I simply explain the PAR3 paradigm, it's about making me a better me and us a better us, ideologically. And in reality, it's about scientists leaving labs to become better scientists, artists leaving studios to become better artists, and philosophers leaving the fireside to become better philosophers. This is a result of our past thought experiments and observations from social structuring.
In summary, the decentralized paradigm, or what might better be called the abstracted Satoshi Nakamoto paradigm, PAR3, is a reform on various levels, whether technological, economic, cultural, or conceptual. Just as we can't logically explain fate, this complex serendipity, at the intersection of science, philosophy, and art, is being redefined. In the near future, some of us will undoubtedly embrace the intoxicating reality in a pouring rain.