Inside the Dark Ages of Blockchain Governance II
AI summary of the linked articleBlockchain governance often falls short of its decentralised ideal, with informal power hierarchies emerging behind technical mechanisms. Dash is the central example: early adopters who accumulated tokens during the network's "instamine" phase used masternodes, which require locking up large amounts of Dash, to build a cartel that entrenched their control. Insiders could have relaunched the network fairly but chose not to annul their entrenchment. Intentional sunsets and failsafes are also proposed for DAOs, and "communitywashing" is described as a way to mask such power dynamics. |
2 comments mishaSubmitter Part II. Far from transcending the flaws of human governance, blockchain networks have mirrored the very structures they sought to dismantle. Have we learned anything? Part I is here: mishaSubmitter I must admit I learned this insight the hard way while DAO-ing and this is all too familiar. But the phenomenon of "communitywashing" is not contained to DAOs, you see it all over crypto space. If you know you can’t unsee. The concept of "community" itself is deeply ambivalent. As Zygmunt Bauman proposed, community can be both a source of solidarity and a tool of exclusion. In the blockchain space, the term is often used in an abstract sense, masking the underlying economic incentives and power structures that shape participation. Token networks, by their very nature, embed speculative objects at their core, creating a tension between the altruistic ideals of community and the capitalist realities of token economics. This tension is particularly evident in decentralised autonomous organisations, where voting power is often proportional to token ownership. In such systems, the "community" is frequently dominated by a small group of early adopters, influential insiders, and/or wealthy investors, undermining the ideals of decentralisation and collective decision-making. This dynamic mirrors Pierre Bourdieu’s critique of cultural capital, where expertise and social networks become tools of exclusion, even in ostensibly open systems. The phenomenon of "communitywashing" is particularly insidious because it exploits the positive connotations of the term to justify exploitative practices. Projects may encourage community participation in governance or development while quietly centralising power and/or extracting value behind the scenes. For example, some blockchain projects promote themselves as community-driven while allocating a disproportionate share of tokens to insiders or venture capitalists. This creates a veneer of decentralisation while maintaining centralised control, much like how corporations use "greenwashing" to market themselves as environmentally friendly while continuing unsustainable practices. In both cases, the rhetoric of virtue serves to deflect scrutiny and legitimise actions that might otherwise be criticised. The parallels between "communitywashing" and "greenwashing" continue. Both phenomena rely on the manipulation of language to create a false sense of legitimacy. In the blockchain space, this can take the form of projects that claim to empower communities while enriching a small group of insiders, or governance models that tout inclusivity while concentrating power in the hands of a few. As Theodor Adorno observed, the commodification of community reflects a broader trend in capitalist societies, where even the language of resistance is co-opted and exploited for profit. |