Ethereum ecosystem coordination: New approaches to balance decentralization and cooperation

An important social challenge facing the Ethereum ecosystem is how to balance and integrate decentralization with 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 striving for their own vision of the future of Ethereum. The main challenge is to ensure that all these projects can collaboratively build a seemingly unified Ethereum ecosystem, rather than numerous incompatible small kingdoms.

To address this challenge, many people in the ecosystem have proposed the concept of "Ethereum coordination." This includes the coordination of values (such as maintaining open source, reducing centralization, and supporting public goods), the coordination of technology (such as adhering to standards within the ecosystem), and the coordination of economics (such as using ETH as a token whenever possible). However, this concept has historically been vaguely defined, which may bring risks of social control: if coordination only means "being with the right people," then this concept has already failed.

To solve this problem, we should clarify the concept of coordination by breaking it down into specific attributes and representing it with specific indicators. Each person's list of indicators may vary, and the indicators may change over time. However, we already have some solid starting points.

Open source is an important attribute with two key values: first, the code is auditable, ensuring security; second, it reduces the risk of vendor lock-in, allowing unlicensed third parties to improve it. Core infrastructure components that the ecosystem relies on should definitely be open source.

Open standards are also very important. Projects should strive for interoperability with the Ethereum ecosystem and be built on existing open standards (such as ERC-20, ERC-1271, etc.) as well as standards currently under development (such as account abstraction, cross-L2 transfers, L1 and L2 light client proofs, and the upcoming address format standard).

Decentralization and security are another key attribute. Projects should avoid points of trust, minimize censorship vulnerabilities, and reduce reliance on centralized infrastructure. This can be measured through "retreat testing" and "internal attack testing."

Inclusivity is also an important consideration. The success of a 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, contributions to open-source technology, and a commitment to donate a portion of tokens or revenue to public goods in the Ethereum ecosystem.

The contribution to a broader world is equally important. The goal of Ethereum is to make the world more free and open, enabling new forms of ownership and collaboration, and making a positive contribution to the important challenges facing humanity. Projects should consider how they can make a difference in this regard.

These standards do not apply to every project; different types of projects (such as Layer 2, wallets, decentralized social media applications, etc.) will have different measurement criteria. The priority of standards may also change over time.

Ideally, we hope to see more entities like L2beat emerge to track the performance of various projects in meeting the standards mentioned above and other criteria put forth by the community. Competition among projects will no longer be about being on good terms with the "right friends," but rather striving to be as consistent as possible under clear and understandable standards.

This approach provides a clearer pathway for the Ethereum Foundation and other organizations (as well as individuals) interested in supporting and participating in the ecosystem, helping them decide which projects to support while remaining neutral. Each organization and individual can make judgments based on the criteria they value most and select projects that align with those criteria.

Only when the definition of "coherence" is clarified can it truly become a preferential system; otherwise, it is likely to turn into an exclusive and zero-sum social game. Through well-tested technologies like the separation of powers, we can address concerns about "who supervises the supervisors." "Dashboard-type organizations" like L2beat, blockchain explorers, and other ecosystem monitors serve as excellent examples of this principle at work in today's Ethereum ecosystem.

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 it in the fair and inclusive manner sought by the Ethereum ecosystem.