Vitalik's Blog: What are the values that the Ethereum ecosystem needs to align clearly?

Compiled by: Wu Says Blockchain

The views expressed in this article do not represent ChainCatcher's opinions

One of the most important social challenges in the Ethereum ecosystem is balance — more precisely, the integration of decentralization and collaboration. The strength of this ecosystem lies in the multitude of different individuals and organizations — client teams, researchers, Layer 2 teams, application developers, local community organizations — all working towards their own visions for the future of Ethereum. The main challenge is ensuring that all these projects can collaboratively build what appears to be a unified Ethereum ecosystem, rather than 138 incompatible little kingdoms.

To address this challenge, many in the Ethereum ecosystem have proposed the concept of "Ethereum alignment." This can include the alignment of values (for example: maintaining open source, minimizing centralization, supporting public goods), the alignment of technology (for example: adhering to standards across the ecosystem), and the alignment of economics (for example: using ETH as a token whenever possible). However, this concept has historically been vaguely defined and may pose risks of social control: if alignment merely means "associating with the right people," then the concept of "alignment" has already failed.

To address this issue, I believe we should clarify the concept of coordination by breaking it down into specific attributes that can be represented by particular metrics. Each person's list of metrics may vary, and the metrics may change over time. However, I think we already have some solid starting points.

Open Source - This has two important values: (i) the code is inspectable to ensure security; more importantly, (ii) it reduces the risk of proprietary technology lock-in and allows unlicensed third parties to improve it. Not every part of every application needs to be fully open source, but the core infrastructure components that the ecosystem relies on should definitely be open source. The gold standard here is the Free Software Foundation's definition of free software and the Open Source Initiative's definition of open source.

Open Standards - Striving for interoperability with the Ethereum ecosystem, and building based on existing open standards (such as: ERC-20, ERC-1271, etc.) as well as standards under development (such as: account abstraction, cross L2 transfers, L1 and L2 light client proofs, and the upcoming address format standards). If you want to introduce a new feature that is not well served by an existing standard, please collaborate with others to write a new ERC. Applications and wallets can be evaluated based on the ERC standards they are compatible with.

Decentralization and Security - Avoid trust points, minimize censorship vulnerabilities, and reduce reliance on centralized infrastructure. Metrics can include (i) "retreat testing": If your team and servers disappeared tomorrow, would the application still be available? (ii) "internal attack testing": If your team attempted to attack the system, how much damage would it cause? An important formal test is the rollup phase of L2beat.

Coherence

Contribution to Ethereum - The success of the project should benefit the entire Ethereum community (e.g., ETH holders, Ethereum users), even if they are not part of the project's own ecosystem. Specific examples include using ETH as a token (thereby enhancing its network effects), contributions to open-source technology, and a commitment to donate a portion of tokens or revenue to public goods within the Ethereum ecosystem.

Contribution to a Broader World - The goal of Ethereum is to make the world more free and open, enabling new forms of ownership and collaboration, and making a positive contribution to the important challenges humanity faces. Does your project make a difference in this regard? Examples include applications that bring sustainable value to a broader audience (e.g., financial inclusion), donations to public goods beyond Ethereum, and technologies that can be practically applied outside the crypto space (e.g., funding mechanisms, universal computer security).

Clearly, not all of the above applies to every project. The metrics applicable to Layer 2, wallets, decentralized social media applications, and so on will be very different. Different metrics may also change in priority: two years ago, it was acceptable for Rollup to still carry a "training wheel" since it was in the "early stage"; whereas today, we need to enter at least stage 1 as soon as possible. Currently, the clearest positive metric is the commitment to donate a portion of tokens, which more and more projects are practicing; in the future, we may also find other aspects of metrics to measure positivity.

My ideal goal here is to see more entities like L2beat emerge, tracking the performance of various projects in meeting the aforementioned standards as well as other criteria proposed by the community. The competition between projects will no longer be about being on good terms with the "right friends," but rather striving to maintain consistency under clear and understandable standards as much as possible. The Ethereum Foundation should keep a certain distance from these activities: we can provide funding for L2beat, but we should not become L2beat ourselves. Creating the next L2beat is itself a permissionless process.

This will also provide a clearer pathway for the Ethereum Foundation and other organizations (as well as individuals) interested in supporting and participating in the ecosystem, helping them decide which projects to support while maintaining neutrality. Each organization and individual can make judgments based on the criteria they value most and select projects that meet those criteria. This not only allows the Ethereum Foundation but also others to become part of the incentive force that maintains project consistency.

Only by clarifying the definition of "capability" can we truly become an optimal selection system; otherwise, it is likely to turn into an exclusive and zero-sum social game. Regarding the concern of "who supervises the supervisors," the best solution is not to hope that all influential people are "angels," but rather to employ time-tested technologies, such as the separation of powers. Organizations like L2beat, blockchain explorers, and other ecosystem monitors, which function as "dashboard-type organizations," are excellent examples of this principle at work in today's Ethereum ecosystem. If we can further clarify the coordination of different aspects without concentrating all power in the hands of a single "supervisor," we can make this concept more effective and reflect the fairness and inclusiveness that the Ethereum ecosystem strives for.

Source: Wu Says Blockchain