Decentralization

  I recently started working in a start-up. The position? A market researcher. As the title of the position states, I research the market. I identify trends. Things that are likely to happen, likely to change. Pick out major disruptions that might occur.

  We as a platform seek to facilitate more smoothly the connection between potential investors and start-ups. What does that mean? Well, start-ups help them get investment. Help investors invest. In the grand scheme of things, aid in the innovation and change of the globe.

  Is that true? Can start-ups rid the world of its problems? Well, that is a whole other article for another time. What I want to talk about today is decentralization.

  When you are in the realm of tech there are certain topics you bump into on the regular. Data analysis for one. Artificial intelligence, machine learning, web 3.0. Data fabric, another hot topic seemingly gaining more and more steam as the second hand on my apple watch ticks forward.

 There are many more topics I have left out obviously. Material engineering for one. 3D printing follows in hot pursuit.

  But if you are an insider of the tech. sector, guess one area you will run into more often in regards to the future is blockchain and cryptocurrency. I will not delve into great descriptions of how I got myself plunged into this rabbit hole but a word that stuck out to me most in the whole was decentralization.

  Decentralization in regards to politics is a method or a process in which the power of a particular body or several bodies are split. This is so the abuse of power by one institution over the other is avoided, at least in theory.

  An example that will not cause controversy… how about the rise of Marxism? Well, no, it may raise some eyebrows but hey.

  During the 1st industrial revolution, factories first came into existence. Speed was gained upon the production of goods such as textile, food, and metals. With the rise in productivity, the cotton weaving industry’s prominence in Great Britain’s market shot up from 2.6% (1760) to 22.4% (1831) to provide one of many examples. We will see this throughout other industries and countries that went through what we call the 1st industrial revolution.

  And as the same old story goes, wealth ends up going into the hands of the few. The centralization of economic power and so on. You see where this is going.

  Around the same timeframe, a pamphlet was published under the title “The Communist Manifesto”. What did this pamphlet say? In short, for all the labor that was being done by the workers not enough of the fruits were rolling down to them. These workers will eventually rise and overthrow those dominating the structure of wealth. As a result, there will be an equal distribution of wealth amongst the workers, etc, etc. Happy ending.

  So as you can see, my thought experiment states, centralization of wealth to the factory owners, then a shift into claims for decentralization.

  Then you see another funny (as funny centralization and decentralization can be) shift. A few funny folks come along and put a twist into the whole formula. Socialism. Yes, yes, Hitler was a socialist and he hated communists, but when you look into the core of its ideology the essence of a working-class and the distribution of wealth still does exist his ideology though not in the form of equality as Karl might have put it.

  So there is another paradigm shift, is what I am trying to say. From the claims for decentralization to centralization. Skewed twists of marxism, be it Bolshevism, Stalinism, or Maoism. Be it Social Democracies or Democratic Socialism. From the ideas of decentralization of wealth is initiated another form of centralization. Not in the form of economy but political institution (though it is very unwise to claim that the two are not related).

  Right, right, you smartass. What are you trying to say? Well, as much as anyone else I hate the seasoned episodes of centralization that have been occurring. The fondling of bank policies, the monopolization of information, the dominance of industries limiting the room for innovations.

  But if we look at that cycle again, centralization > decentralization > centralization. The actual formulation of institutions, a solid body, the enactment of an ideology, call it what you may, happened only during the centralization cycle if you can call it a cycle. Decentralization only remained a beautiful idea, a chaotic experiment (remember all the revolutions in the name of communism?), then a shift into this demented or more reasonable version of distribution of wealth.

  Blockchain, crypto, data fabric, and all the other new techs that are coming into being either in concept or actuality are pushing for the decentralization of information and data. This is so that enterprises, corporates, and institutions cannot monopolize and abuse information and data they have gathered. A backlash against centralization. So great! Right?

  What worries me is that this is just a beautiful idea. Information for everyone. Transparency in the transaction and formulation of data. You see, a scenario I gruggled up out of my head was another cycle of abuse. What if a few bodies came along and said “Yes! We hate G*! We also f**king hate F* and A* and S*. Use our platform, device, or application. It is decentralized and we do not monopolize any of your data!”

  Time and time again, we see situations where authority is challenged just to become another form of authority. Peer to peer participation is all good when it is healthy, constructive, intelligent, and aware. Decentralization, distribution, and participation otherwise are only just ideas that have been thrown out there to be mauled by predators somewhere down the line.

  I like social democracies in Europe. Specifically the ones in Scandinavia. Whatever the right-wing segments might say. They are not perfect. Of course. Nothing is. Although a whole other topic and theme, I think they have managed to come up with a system of balance between decentralization and centralization. A core institution that seemingly deals with the economy, politics, so on and so forth, but also an attempt to distribute the output that was created. A very trivial look into Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark. But you get the point.

  Before we go shouting “CHARGE!!!!!”, maybe it is time we think about how start-ups will position these techs. Obviously, presuming some want to push for the decentralization of the IT industry. Have a real deep think about the environment that should be created. How do we keep the idea of decentralization alive and protect it from abuse like many other beautiful ideas.

FYI, very open to ideas. So do comment.