Hello brothers, today I want to talk about a relatively sensitive topic - the degree of decentralization of Plume. Recently, I've seen a lot of debate in the community, with some saying that Plume has betrayed the original intention of blockchain and has become too centralized; while others argue that this level of centralization is necessary. I would like to discuss this issue from the perspective of an ordinary user.
First, we need to clarify what decentralization is. In my view, decentralization is not a black-and-white concept, but rather a matter of degree. Complete decentralization might mean chaos and inefficiency, while complete centralization loses the significance of blockchain. The key is to find a suitable balance point.
From a technical architecture perspective, Plume has indeed made some compromises on decentralization. For example, its validator network is relatively small, mainly operated by some well-known institutions and teams. This is very different from the completely open validation of Bitcoin or Ethereum.
However, this design also has its rationale. RWA involves real-world assets and requires higher qualifications and reliability of validators. If anyone can become a validator, it may pose risks in terms of asset security and compliance.
From the perspective of governance mechanisms, Plume adopts a voting system based on PLUME tokens. In theory, any user holding tokens can participate in governance decisions. However, the reality is that most tokens are concentrated in the hands of a few institutional investors, and ordinary retail investors have very limited influence.
I have tried to participate in governance votes a few times and found that the voting rate for most proposals is not high, and the results are basically in line with the wishes of major stakeholders. This is not much different from traditional shareholder meetings.
However, I don't think this is entirely a bad thing. At least the governance process is transparent, and all voting records can be checked on-chain. Moreover, compared to the opaque operations of traditional financial institutions, this is already a significant improvement.
What worries me more is the degree of centralization in project decision-making. Although there is a governance voting mechanism, many important decisions still seem to be led by the core team. For example, the collaboration with Apollo, the prioritization of new feature development, etc., these decisions are rarely decided through community voting.
Of course, from an efficiency perspective, this approach is understandable. After all, the efficiency of blockchain governance is usually quite low, and if everything needs to be decided by vote, the project may not be able to develop quickly.
But this also brings up a question: what if the core team's decisions are inconsistent with community interests? Although token holders can theoretically vote against it, it is very difficult in practice.
From the perspective of user experience, I think the current governance mechanism still has issues. Ordinary users find it very difficult to truly participate in project decision-making, and most people are even unaware that there is such a thing as governance voting.
I suggest that Plume could add a governance module in the user interface to make it easier for users to participate in voting. At the same time, consider introducing mechanisms to encourage user participation in governance, such as voting rewards, etc.
From the perspective of long-term development, I think Plume needs to make more efforts in terms of decentralization. Although the current level of centralization may be necessary, as the project matures and the user base expands, it should gradually develop towards a more decentralized direction.
Especially in terms of the validator network, it may be worth considering introducing more diverse validators, including some small technical teams and individual validators. Of course, this requires finding a balance between decentralization and security.
Another point worth noting is the relationship between Plume and traditional institutions. The participation of institutions like Apollo does bring funding and resources, but it may also affect the project's independence. If these institutions have too much influence, Plume could become an extension of traditional finance, losing the characteristics of a blockchain project.
I think this is a very nuanced issue. On one hand, the participation of traditional institutions is beneficial for the development and compliance of the project; on the other hand, over-reliance on these institutions may affect the degree of decentralization of the project.
From an investment perspective, the degree of decentralization is indeed an important factor I consider. Although I am not a purist of decentralization, I still hope that the projects I invest in can maintain a certain degree of decentralized characteristics.
Currently, the degree of decentralization of Plume, while not ideal, is not too bad either. The key is to see the future development direction of the project. If it can gradually increase the degree of decentralization while maintaining efficiency, I think it is still worth looking forward to.
What I want to say in conclusion is that decentralization is not the goal, but a means. We pursue decentralization to achieve better transparency, security, and anti-censorship. If these goals can be achieved through other means, the degree of decentralization is actually not the most important.
But in any case, the project side should pay enough attention and reflection on the issue of decentralization. After all, this is one of the important features that distinguish blockchain projects from traditional projects.
Alright, today's discussion on decentralization ends here. This is a very complex topic, and different people may have different views. Everyone is welcome to leave comments and share your perspectives. See you next time!
