“Better technology doesn’t always win” is an old adage in entrepreneurship with numerous well-studied examples from business history: standard vs. wider and more performant railway track gauges, combustion vs. electrical engines for inner city car transport, Qwerty vs. Dvorak as keyboard layouts, VHS vs. Betamax as videotape formats, etc. Similarly, while it is true that solving technical problems related to scalability, privacy, cost, and user experience is essential for driving the adoption of blockchain networks, the long-term success of individual networks is not only – and, in some cases, not even primarily – a function of their relative technical merits. It’s also a function of their relative institutionalization.

The road to progressive decentralization runs parallel to – and will eventually intersect with – the road to progressive compliance. The challenge is that, while “decentralization” in crypto has a broadly global definition, regulation is and will likely remain a national, or at least a regional, matter. Thus, there is no universal playbook towards compliance beyond what should be obvious to anyone. But the most important task at hand is to ensure that all of the above does not come at the cost of freedom to create and maintain open-source technologies, nor at the cost of what’s essential to the value proposition of blockchains: public verifiability of information, reduced reliance on the subjectivity of human administrators (automation), and tilting the power balance between institutions and individuals in favor of the latter (self-sovereignty).