# @shazow.eth: "sufficiently decentralized" only means censorship resistance

Source: https://farcaster.xyz/shazow.eth/0x71c5bdeb
Kiwi News: https://news.kiwistand.com/stories/shazoweth-sufficiently-decentralized-only-means-censorship-resistance?index=0x69277b12d366861b3d0fc0994f699a0814b5ef4a592a89a71f435bc514258b9696d60746
Submitted by misha on 2025-11-26 UTC, 2 upvotes, 0 comments

## Summary

Shazow argues that "sufficiently decentralized" for social networks means only censorship resistance, and nothing more. The definition, from a 2022 essay by @v (Varun Srinivasan), says a network is sufficiently decentralized if two users can find each other and communicate even when the rest of the network tries to prevent it. The definition places no constraints on who owns, funds, or controls the network or which use cases it encourages. Under this definition, a network owned by one company with a single client could still credibly claim to be sufficiently decentralized. The author calls the claim tightly scoped and useful, and says many people on Farcaster read more into the term than it contains.

## Article

What does "sufficiently decentralized social network" actually mean?

There seems to be some confusion, where people assume it means more than it actually does.

@v wrote this essay in 2022, arguing that a core tenet should be oriented around censorship resistance.

"A social network achieves sufficient decentralization if two users can find each other and communicate, even if the rest of the network wants to prevent it."

The essay makes some plausible assumptions of what such a social network may look like but really the core tenet makes no claims about any other power structures of the social network.

If we can construct a network with these properties that is owned by one company with one client that encourages one kind of use case, we can still credibly claim it's "sufficiently decentralized". Who knows, with innovations in cryptography this may become more plausible.

"Sufficient decentralization" as defined here adds no real constraints about who owns the network, who funds it, who controls what use cases it encourages/discourages, etc. It's a tightly scoped claim, and that is useful.

It's a good essay, everyone should read it. I think a lot of people on Farcaster want "sufficient decentralization" to mean something more than it does, but it's important to be on the same page.

https://www.varunsrinivasan.com/2022/01/11/sufficient-decentralization-for-social-networks