When Bitcoin first arrived on the scene, it introduced a radical promise: a fully decentralized, trustless form of digital money. No banks, no middlemen, no single entity in control. At the time, this innovation felt like it could fundamentally change how we exchange value. It was slow and somewhat expensive to transact, but that was seen as a necessary tradeoff for true decentralization and censorship resistance.
Since then, the blockchain ecosystem has evolved in many ways, often in directions that appear to undermine that original ethos. Ethereum came along with additional functionality—smart contracts and decentralized applications (dapps)—but over time, it shifted from proof of work to proof of stake, and questions arose about whether this altered the degree of decentralization. Other blockchains kept popping up, each claiming to be faster, cheaper, and more scalable—but typically at the expense of decentralization, with large token allocations carved out for founders, VCs, and early insiders.
Now we see new “solutions,” like Coinbase’s Base (an Ethereum Layer 2), which doesn’t even have a token and is effectively under the control of one giant entity. In parallel, we watch institutions like BlackRock hint at bringing real-world assets (RWAs)—stocks, bonds, ETFs—onto tokenized, “blockchain-based” platforms. The catch? These platforms will likely be heavily regulated and centralized, just like the old system.
All this begs the question: Are we simply heading back to a repackaged version of the same centralized financial and tech infrastructure—just with “blockchain” in the marketing brochure? Below is a deeper look at that journey and why many observers worry that we’ve come full circle.
1. Bitcoin: The Birth of Decentralization (and Its Tradeoffs)
- Decentralization and trustlessness: Bitcoin’s proof-of-work consensus mechanism and global network of miners ensure no one party can easily control or censor transactions. This is the core value proposition.
- Slow and potentially expensive: Bitcoin sacrifices speed and cheap transactions for robust security. When the network is busy, fees can spike, and block confirmations take around 10 minutes each.
- Still the largest by market cap: Despite newer entrants, Bitcoin remains the big player and the example most people reference when they talk about “decentralized crypto.”
At its best, Bitcoin demonstrated that you could create a decentralized, censorship-resistant network. But many found it lacking in speed and programmability for more complex use cases.
2. Ethereum and the Rise of Smart Contracts
- Smart contracts and dapps: Ethereum took the idea of a blockchain beyond mere payments, enabling code to run “on-chain,” supposedly unstoppable and permissionless.
- Less decentralized? From the start, critics pointed out that Ethereum had a more visible “leadership” (the Ethereum Foundation, Vitalik Buterin, etc.) and an initial token sale that arguably concentrated early holdings.
- Transition to Proof of Stake: Ethereum recently shifted from proof of work to proof of stake. This move made the network more energy efficient and scalable in some respects, but also raised centralization concerns—large validators, staking pools, and institutions can accumulate influence more easily than in a proof-of-work system.
In principle, Ethereum still aspires to remain decentralized, but the practical realities—large staking providers, centralized infrastructure for dapps, or reliance on big players—make the level of true decentralization debatable.
3. Beyond Ethereum: Faster Chains, Less Decentralization
As the blockchain space expanded, we saw a parade of new chains promoting faster finality and lower fees. Projects like Solana, BNB Chain, Avalanche, and others began to compete for users and developers. However, many have:
- Fewer validators or more centralized consensus models.
- Significant token allocations for founders, VCs, and insiders.
- Greater ease of control, meaning that these networks could freeze addresses, roll back transactions, or otherwise intervene if necessary.
While they solved immediate pain points (e.g., Ethereum’s high gas fees and scalability issues), they often did so by stepping away from the decentralized ideals that Bitcoin championed. This tradeoff is sometimes labeled the “blockchain trilemma”: you can optimize for decentralization, security, or scalability—pick two, but not all three.
4. The Layer-2 Boom: Coinbase’s Base and the Token Question
Enter “Layer 2” (L2) solutions. Instead of building entirely new blockchains, L2s are meant to sit on top of Ethereum (or another L1), handling transactions off-chain in batches and then periodically settling data back on the main network. The idea is you get the security of Ethereum, but with the speed and cost advantages of a smaller, more centralized chain.
- Coinbase’s Base: This new L2 doesn’t have a token and is essentially centralized under Coinbase’s oversight.
- Token Not Required? The big revelation here is that many L2s might not actually need their own tokens to function. If fees are paid in ETH (or another currency on Ethereum), there’s little reason to introduce a separate token—apart from speculation or fundraising motives.
- Regulatory compliance: Because Coinbase is a highly regulated entity, Base is subject to compliance obligations, meaning user accounts can be KYC’d or restricted, and the platform can respond to government requests.
If the “blockchain” part of a solution is fully controlled by one big corporation, and if there is no essential utility for a token, it starts to resemble a traditional database model—albeit one that may occasionally checkpoint transactions to Ethereum for final settlement.
5. What About Dapps? Where Are They?
One key selling point of Ethereum and subsequent chains was the rise of decentralized applications, or dapps. These were supposed to be unstoppable, censorship-resistant, and open to all. And while we do have DeFi (decentralized finance) platforms, NFT marketplaces, and some gaming projects:
- The majority revolve around speculation or financial engineering.
- Many “dapps” still rely on centralized hosting for their front ends, user data, or node infrastructure—meaning they’re not fully decentralized in practice.
- Outside of niche communities, mainstream users rarely use any dapps day-to-day, partly due to complex user experience, private key management, and a lack of widespread “killer apps.”
So, when people ask, “Are these kinds of blockchains necessary at all?” it’s a valid question. If you can run 95% of the app in a centralized manner, the “decentralized” part can seem more like a marketing pitch or a mild improvement in transparency rather than a revolution.
6. Tokenizing Real-World Assets: Another Slide Toward Centralization?
A growing narrative in crypto is that real-world assets (RWAs) like stocks, bonds, and ETFs will eventually be traded on the blockchain. This is often framed as a new frontier for global finance. However, when we dig a bit deeper:
- Regulation: Traditional financial assets are heavily regulated. Any blockchain-based system that wants to handle these assets at scale will need to comply with KYC/AML, securities laws, and other strict oversight.
- Institutional preference: Big players like BlackRock or large banks will want robust control. They may run a private ledger or a permissioned chain with a known set of validators and the ability to freeze assets on demand.
- No need for private keys or tokens: Most retail investors prefer a user-friendly login over managing seed phrases. Meanwhile, a giant institution can cover transaction fees or handle them in the background. A separate “chain token” might not even be necessary.
The end result feels a lot like a web-based brokerage account we already have today—just with a “tokenized” veneer. If one giant corporation issues and controls these tokenized shares, we are essentially back to a centralized system, albeit with some cryptographic verification in the background.
7. Have We Come Full Circle?
The big picture can feel bleak if your vision of crypto was total user sovereignty and decentralization:
- Bitcoin remains slow and pricey for small transactions, but it stays truest to the original decentralized promise. Whether it can remain fully decentralized in the face of large mining pools or institutional adoption is another matter.
- Ethereum and many other chains are drifting toward partial or significant centralization, especially at layer 2.
- Future RWA blockchains might be wholly centralized, regulated, and controlled by big finance or big tech.
In that scenario, we risk “looping back” to a system that looks like Web2: user accounts, corporate or state-level control, the ability to freeze or reverse transactions, and so on. If so, the “blockchain” label might be more about efficiency gains, compliance, or marketing, rather than a radical shift in power structures.
8. Does Bitcoin Still Have a Use Case, or Is It Next?
Some argue that only Bitcoin truly maintains that decentralized ethos. Indeed, Bitcoin’s community is famously resistant to forks or changes that would compromise its principles. But we can imagine two scenarios:
- Bitcoin remains decentralized: A robust global network of miners and node operators keeps the chain censorship-resistant. Institutions provide custodial services for the masses, but anyone can still hold their own keys and transact freely on the base layer if they choose.
- Bitcoin eventually succumbs: If mining power centralizes in a few regions or large corporations, or if major governments clamp down, the network could become effectively regulated or even controlled at certain choke points.
It’s an open question which path Bitcoin ultimately takes. History suggests Bitcoin has been resilient, but nothing is guaranteed forever.
Conclusion: The Great Loop Back to Web2?
For many of us, the beauty of the original blockchain concept was the idea of disintermediating powerful gatekeepers and giving individuals genuine control over their finances and data. Yet, in the race for user adoption, speed, and regulatory acceptance, we see more and more blockchains opting to centralize. Whether it’s big corporate layer-2 networks or fully permissioned “stock tokenization” platforms, many of these solutions end up looking a lot like traditional web infrastructure—just with a cryptographic wrapper.
Does that mean the entire experiment in decentralization was futile? Not necessarily. Bitcoin and certain other permissionless networks still provide censorship-resistant tools for those who value them. The real question is whether mainstream users will choose to pay extra (in fees or complexity) for the benefits of decentralization—or simply default to the easiest, most user-friendly platforms, which happen to be highly centralized.
In the end, we might see two parallel worlds: one where corporate-run “blockchains” dominate mainstream usage (essentially Web2.5) and another, smaller ecosystem of genuinely decentralized networks used by those who need or want true self-sovereignty. Either way, the big risk is that we end up with a loop: big finance and big tech once again in control—only this time, they’ll claim it’s “powered by blockchain.”
Explore More:
Leave a Reply