Ethereum ecosystem coordination: building a balance between decentralization and cooperation

An important social challenge faced by the Ethereum ecosystem is how to find a balance between decentralization and collaboration. The strength of the ecosystem lies in the numerous different individuals and organizations, including client teams, researchers, Layer 2 teams, application developers, and local community organizations, all working towards their own Ethereum vision. The main challenge is to ensure that these projects can collectively build a seemingly unified Ethereum ecosystem, rather than a collection of incompatible small kingdoms.

To address this challenge, many in the ecosystem have proposed the concept of "Ethereum coordination." This includes coordination in terms of values, technology, and economics. However, this concept has traditionally been vaguely defined, which may lead to risks of control at the social level. If coordination merely means "aligning with certain people," then this concept has already failed.

To address this issue, the concept of coordination should be made clearer by breaking it down into specific attributes and represented by specific metrics. Each person's list of metrics may differ, and the metrics may change over time. However, we already have some solid starting points.

Open source is an important indicator as it ensures that the code is auditable for security and reduces the risk of vendor lock-in. Core infrastructure components that the ecosystem relies on should be open source. Open standards are also crucial, working towards interoperability with the ecosystem and building upon existing and developing standards.

Decentralization and security are another key metric, aiming to avoid trust points, minimize censorship vulnerabilities, and reduce reliance on centralized infrastructure. This can be measured through methods such as "retreat testing" and "internal attack testing."

Inclusiveness is also an important consideration. The success of the project should benefit the entire Ethereum community, even if they are not part of the project's own ecosystem. Specific examples include using ETH as a token, contributing to open-source technology, and committing to donate a portion of tokens or revenue to public goods in the ecosystem.

Contributions to a broader world are equally important. The goal of Ethereum is to make the world more free and open, enable new forms of ownership and collaboration, and make a positive contribution to the significant challenges facing humanity. Projects can achieve this goal by delivering sustainable value applications to a wider audience, donating to public goods, and building technologies that can be practically applied outside the crypto space.

These standards do not apply to every project, and the metrics for different types of projects may vary. Priorities may also change over time. Currently, the clearest positive metric is the commitment to donate a portion of tokens, and in the future, other metrics for measuring different aspects may be found.

Ideally, we need more entities similar to certain evaluation platforms to emerge, tracking the performance of various projects in meeting the aforementioned standards as well as other standards proposed by the community. The competition between projects will no longer be about befriending the 'right friends,' but rather striving to remain as consistent as possible under clear and understandable standards. Relevant foundations should maintain a certain distance from these activities; they can provide financial support, but should not become the evaluators themselves.

This provides a clearer path for organizations and individuals interested in supporting and participating in the ecosystem, helping them decide which projects to support while maintaining neutrality. Each entity can make judgments based on the criteria they value most and choose projects that align with those criteria.

Only by clarifying the definition of "capability" can we truly become an optimal system; otherwise, it may turn into an exclusive and zero-sum social game. The best solution to the concern of "who supervises the supervisors" is through time-tested techniques such as the separation of powers. Evaluating platforms, blockchain explorers, and other ecosystem monitors are excellent practices of this principle.

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 embody the pursuit of the Ethereum ecosystem in a fair and inclusive manner.