Decentralization and Subjective Expectations

There is this idea spreading around lately that decentralization implies that people should be able to commit crimes with total impunity.

While it’s hard to find any correlation between the two things, there are some who seem pretty adamant that one thing cannot exist without the other.

Let me give you an example.

Let’s take the recent outrage in some sectors of the crypto community after some Block Producers of EOS decided to freeze seven accounts for fishing and scamming people.

Many have been very vocal about the subject, most notably Charlie Shrem from whom I’d like to share this exact quote:

“Protecting” “punishing”. No.

It’s clear that like many others he’s taking offense to the BPs for apparently “protecting” the users and “punishing” the scammers. And it’s a totally valid and respectable opinion.

Me personally, I wouldn’t lose sleep about some scammers “earning” less money because their phishing scheme is caught.

However, this raises an interesting question:

What possible relationship exists between decentralization and criminal impunity?

Take Uber for example, one of the first decentralization wins we’ve seen in terms of mass adoption.

In Uber, everyone can download the app and get a ride to whatever they want, granted that there is another person to take them there.

By the same token, everyone who has a car and wishes to earn some extra money can create an account and start driving without needing to go to any central authority for permission.

And without needing to wait anywhere from weeks to months for approval from another human being. Not to mention the exorbitant prices these centralized licences cost in comparison to a decentralized app.

Now, if some user were to commit a crime (robbing the passengers, sexually assaulting the passengers… Etc) their account would be terminated, and that doesn’t make the use of Uber any less decentralized.

In fact, decentralization and criminal impunity are two entirely different animals.

In LocalBitcoins for example, you can choose to trade with any person you want at any rate you both agree on.

LocalBitcoins of course warns you to take some precautions such as prioritizing trusted users, never releasing the Bitcoin until the money has arrived... So on and so forth.

However, scams still exist and LocalBitcoins does block the scamming accounts when that happens.

You see, this doesn’t make the system any less decentralized, it just doesn’t protect the scammers, that’s all.

Plus, it’s hard to comprehend the wisdom behind incentivizing the scammers at the expense of everyone else.

But let’s see another example:

In AirBnb there are on occasions some false advertisements. Some scammers post stolen pictures of some cool houses and create fake listings to scam people.

These cases are always bound to happen due of the decentralized aspect of the platform. Everyone can create an account and rent a place, and everyone can create a listing for their home and rent it out.

Just like the aforementioned example, AirBnb also warns you to take some preventive measures (Prioritizing verified listings, taking precautions before sending money... Etc).

But whenever some of these scams get exposed, AirBnb doesn’t hesitate to take those listings down. With reason on their side I may add.

And when that happens, you don’t see people being outraged that AirBnb is hurting the scammers ability to make money out defrauding people.

Why do some people get offended if some phishing sites were taken down, and in the process getting outraged that some bad players have lost their ability to scam users?

This is pure speculation, but I think that part of it is that there is an ideological factor in play.

Some people view decentralization as a certain type of anarchy, maybe their understanding of it and what it means to them. While others may view it from a more voluntaryist spectrum.

On one side, we have you would call a Wild West type of anarchy. A place where the worst elements of society could kill some cowboy, rape his wife and daughter and take all his properties and belongings… Then they get to walk Scot free.

The people who lean towards this type of ideology may never hurt a fly themselves nor have a single mean bone in their body, but it’s the primary idea that all rules and consequences must be abolished.

On the other side we have voluntarism. Where you interact with people in a voluntary basis without recurring to force nor deceit.

You are still free, you just don’t harm any person nor their private property.

And there’s where the two things start to diverge.

Closing Thoughts:

We all want to see the blockchain adoption grow and attract more users, right? So wouldn’t it make sense to protect the ecosystem, to make it stronger, to make it easier to access for the wider public and gain an added element of trust?

At first, we all seem to row in the same direction, but then the philosophical element gets in play and everyone wants to see their pre-existing ideology implemented... That’s when the word “decentralization” starts to gain a different meaning for everyone.

But the question remains, what possible need is there to attach criminal impunity to decentralization?

Looking forward to read your thoughts on the subject.

Image Sources: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6