I do not think it is possible to achieve 100% decentralization, security and privacy but we can drive towards it.
What do you think?
What can we do to achieve 100% decentralization
13 Likes
Why do ya even think Web3 is 100% decentralized? Next Web4, Web5 and so on.
2 Likes
Web3 can’t be fully decentralized, but moving towards greater decentralization is achievable.
Achieving 100% decentralization is an extremely ambitious goal and difficult to fully realize for several reasons:
- Technological and resource limitations: Many decentralized systems still rely on some centralized technologies or resources (like hosting services or network infrastructure).
- Control by large entities: Large companies or organizations may own significant network resources or control the majority of tokens, which can lead to an imbalance in governance power.
- Security and privacy: In a fully decentralized environment, ensuring security and privacy can be challenging, as there is no centralized authority to enforce standards or provide safeguards.
- Scalability: To achieve efficient and fast transactions, there are often compromises between decentralization and centralized solutions to enhance scalability.
While 100% decentralization might not be possible, we can still work toward further decentralization by:
- Developing more distributed protocols, improving consensus algorithms, and encouraging community participation in network governance.
- Seeking alternatives to existing centralized points, such as decentralized storage and peer-to-peer network services.
- Raising awareness and adopting decentralized norms both in the protocols and in the applications built on Web3.
In conclusion, Web3 may never achieve complete decentralization, but the process of reducing reliance on centralized entities remains a promising and important path forward.
8 Likes
Web3 can’t be 100% decentralized due to reliance on centralized infrastructure (like servers), concentrated control in consensus mechanisms, developer influence, and governance token disparities. Additionally, user access points and regulatory pressures further limit full decentralization.
2 Likes
This is quite a long one, it took me hours to put this up, but trust me, it was worth it, considering the value contained here 
.
So, for me, I’ll say that achieving a 100% decentralization is an ongoing process, when considering the complexity of such advanced goal.
I mean, we have to consider the technical, governance, social, economic and infrastructural aspect of the decentralization, by using a scalable blockchain like Klever (which obviously is still evolving and improving like Ethereum did from ETH to ETH 2.0), together with its distributed storage (I’m not too sure either of them Klever is using, FILECOIN,SIA or the popular IPFS), to make its decentralized network a reality.
I said all that to say that they ought to be transparency in decision making (which is what decentralization is all about), which with the help of proper communication will in turn help drive a collaborative community that is inclusive, empowered, educated and incentivized with the use of tokens, DeFi, and community funded projects, which will drive everyone to working together to build a better and more secured decentralized future of the web3 ecosystem.
So yes, a 100% decentralization in the Web3 is possible, but only in the long run, and not forgetting underlying infrastructure decentralization, like leveraging decentralized cloud solution to gradually fish out centralized providers, which will make the Internet more secured and resilient, creating a decentralized web3 that benefits everyone in the ecosystem.
4 Likes
Have you guys heard about valocracy? Valocracy
I think it is a good concept to decentralized governance.
5 Likes
As a Web3 enthusiast, I believe achieving 100% decentralization is an aspirational goal, but it’s challenging due to infrastructure, scalability, security, governance, and interoperability complexities.
6 Likes
I think the more important question here is “Should WEB3 be fully decentralized?”
After we’ve exhaustively answered that question, we can now start asking if WEB3 can be fully decentralized.
Let’s not get all caught up in the “If we CAN” and forget “If we SHOULD”
4 Likes
I never said it was though
2 Likes
Incredible answer. I believe we can work towards it but sadly, I’m not sure we can ever achieve 100% decentralization
1 Like
Ok great answer too, what do you think can be done?
3 Likes
In my opinion, there has to be a centralized entity to keep decentralization in check
3 Likes
I think I like the approach from which you asked the question. We first get to understand “why something has to be” before discussing “the possibility of achieving that thing.” Taking this approach provides a clearer path to discovering the possibilities of achieving a certain goal.
Generally, I think centralization is a more definite term because it is easier and less complicated to “control” than to democratize an already monopolized system. Decentralization can be used in different contexts, such as power, communication, and finance. Although decentralization is used differently in various fields, it is generally understood to mean “a system designed with no single entity in control.” There are different blockchains, each designed to serve a specific function. I believe in this case, we’re talking about “public blockchains,” in which achieving complete decentralization is possible but not feasible for several reasons, outlined below:
Consensus Mechanism:
There are two commonly known mechanisms: Proof of Work (PoW)* and Proof of Stake (PoS). The Proof of Work consensus allows for a more decentralized system; however, as the network continues to grow in a blockchain like Bitcoin, the increasing hash power makes solving the cryptographic puzzle to mine new bitcoins and achieve consensus more difficult. Consequently, it becomes somewhat centralized, as only a select few entities can keep up with the infrastructure needed. On the other hand, in the Proof of Stake system, a significant amount of tokens is required to stake before being approved to run consensus on the network. Not all users can participate in this.
Summary:
In a PoW blockchain, the network is transparent but not completely decentralized because the capacity to join consensus is not open to all. The infrastructure doesn’t accommodate all Bitcoin users joining in the consensus.
In theory, even if such a system were designed, it would result in a poorly scaled blockchain because it would take longer for all users (miners included) to reach consensus before validating a transaction.
The debate on developing a completely decentralized, scalable, and fast blockchain is always a tough one, and this has been the goal of many blockchains out there. Reconsidering the question, I’d say it’s not possible, nor is it necessary, to achieve complete decentralization. What is important is building a secure, fast, and scalable blockchain that can accommodate various use cases.
5 Likes
Achieving 100% decentralization in Web3 is extremely challenging, if not impossible, due to a variety of technical, governance, and user-experience factors. Here’s why:
-
Infrastructure Dependencies
• Blockchains rely on nodes and validators, which often require centralized entities for hosting or managing infrastructure (e.g., cloud providers like AWS). Even if the blockchain itself is decentralized, these underlying dependencies introduce some level of centralization.
-
User Interfaces and Services
• Web3 applications still need centralized services for user-friendly experiences. Wallets, browsers, and exchanges often use centralized components to interact with decentralized networks efficiently.
• Front-end services, like websites and APIs, are often hosted on centralized servers, even though the backend (smart contracts) is decentralized. -
Governance Structures
• While many Web3 projects use decentralized governance models (e.g., DAOs), voting power often concentrates among early adopters, large stakeholders, or token holders, introducing power imbalances and reducing true decentralization in decision-making.
-
Regulatory and Legal Requirements
• Full decentralization might conflict with legal and regulatory frameworks. For instance, compliance with local laws (e.g., KYC/AML) often requires central authorities to verify user identities and report suspicious activity.
-
Security and Upgrades
• Security vulnerabilities and critical upgrades often require centralized coordination, as decentralized approaches to resolving issues or implementing upgrades may be too slow or complex in high-stakes situations.
In conclusion, while Web3 aspires to minimize centralization as much as possible, certain aspects of the ecosystem still require central points of control for efficiency, security, governance, and compliance. It’s a spectrum, not an absolute state.
2 Likes
You’re going off on a tangent and wrote a long note that doesn’t answer the question.
The concern here isn’t the kind of mechanisms, but about if full decentralization should be achieved, then about if it can be achieved.
Full decentralization is a Nobel quest on paper, but once you start building, humans will show why no system is 100% efficient. It’s an unpopular opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.
Let’s look a few factors:
- FINANCIAL DECENTRALIZATION: The whole idea of cryptocurrency is not just to get the government out of finances, but to put money in the hands of the people. However, we ended up creating a system where the guys with more money just buy stuff up and start the system afresh.
- VOTING RIGHTS: Voting rights are a lot dependent on how much of a token you own. In that case, votes are non-fungible because the wealthier guy can buy up more LP tokens and hold more sway over the decisions made regardless of other factors.
- PROSECUTING AND PENALIZING MALICIOUS ENTITIES: Even in the case of self-regulation, the players of the space have no legal capacity to go after, apprehend, prosecute, sentence, and enforce sentence on malicious entities. That laps creates room for malicious entities to have a field day, and any action in any capacity to go after them will be considered illegal unless there are legalities to those actions. That means oversight is needed, but that takes away from the steps towards full decentralization.
So I’ll ask again, “Should decentralization be achieved”, and “Can decentralization be achieved”?
3 Likes
Maybe you should take time to fully read the post before hastily concluding. I pointed out how a consensus mechanisms of a Blockchain affects the possibility of achieving complete decentralisation. I also gave a summary where I mentioned that it is practically impossible to achieve completely decentralisation and that if in practice such a system is developed it would result in developing a poorly scaled Blockchain. Lastly I mentioned that what is of importance is debating on how to build Blockchains that are fast, scalable and decentralised. You were only able to specifically outline those points in your reply and further adding other factors that can hinder achieving complete decentralisation.
2 Likes
When the debate is between “Should we” and “Can we”, it’s not an infrastructure problem but an ethics and legality problem; that’s why I said you didn’t address the challenge posed.
3 Likes
I’m done here, man!
I thought you would have specifically pointed out how irrelevant it is to discuss blockchain consensus mechanisms in relation to the question asked. Instead, your reply says something completely different.
3 Likes
Why bail out with the same reply that brought us on the same page?
Lots of insightful comments with lots to pick from
1 Like