How to build a community that won’t “overgraze” open source tools available for all.

By Dr. Paul J. Dylan-EnnisScott Moore

AccessTimeIconFeb 23, 2023 at 8:54 p.m.

(Melody Wang/Getty Images)

Consensus 2023 Logo

Join the most important conversation in crypto and Web3 taking place in Austin, Texas, April 26-28.

Secure Your Seat

Although the term goes all the way back to pre-modern times, the first rigorous framework for defining public goods was created in the 1950s, first by economist Paul Samuelson and then later by Richard Musgrave, who formulated the definitions of “non-rivalry” and “non-excludability” that we so often use today. Goods like clean air, parks, roads, or national defense are often used as canonical examples of these types of goods – if one person has access to it, everyone does, and one person’s use can never deplete another’s.

This article is part of CoinDesk’s “BUIDL Week.” Dr. Paul Dylan-Ennis is an assistant professor in the College of Business, University College Dublin. Scott Moore is a co-founder at Gitcoin, an internet-native community focused on building and funding digital public goods.

These definitions were created at a very particular time in a nascent global post-World War II environment. Nationalism was still a prominent feature of contemporary life, and how we understood the notion of “the public” beyond the foundational borders of states wasn’t always clear to a society whose well-being and very survival depended on them. In a post-internet age, the conversation around global public goods and what we mean by the term has grown significantly. It’s become clear that there are much broader degrees of excludability and rivalry when we think about these goods: A road might only be accessible if you’re allowed into a particular city and a gate might be locked around a park during night-time hours.






View All Prices

The internet, although far more omnipresent, is still not fully accessible around the world even as projects like Starlink continue to roll out.

We still pay for all kinds of not-so-public goods because we recognize that aspirationally we care about the openness of the goods in question, but practically we’re focused on the positive externalities they generate. We pay for local subway systems that might overflow from demand and where riders pay a fee because it helps the city thrive.

By paying, riders form communities and organizations that build economic activity, property holders thrive as value accrues around stations, and, in turn, the taxes levied return value back to the city. Despite their restrictions, goods like the subway system add to our collective well-being.

Ethereum, like a subway system, produces meaningful positive externalities, even if it sometimes gets clogged with transactions. Volumes have been written about the way the so-called world computer could increase human agency and coordination, with some even comparing what’s been and remains to be built to a city. Others have noted that programmable money enables us to move value the same way the early internet enabled us to transfer information.

See also: Ethereum’s Political Philosophy Explained | Opinion

In one sense then, Ethereum is a public good: It’s built for its own kind of digital city, often by its citizens, with the aim of improving everyone’s well-being. Practically, though, like most things we define this way, and especially with no state in sight, Ethereum functions like a common, and all common goods need to be carefully maintained.

Governing the Ethereum commons

In 2009, Elinor Ostrom was given a Nobel Prize for her work on governing the commons. She showed that by designing local, self-organized systems we could solve what Garrett Hardin (an American ecologist known for his influential research on the “tragedy of the commons”) thought was an inevitable depletion of resources without relying on the state or companies.

In Ethereum, our maintenance means taking part in writing meaningful open-source software, participating in governance, and preventing capture through the dilution of the culture and principles of the ecosystem.

Managing a common like Ethereum is a complicated process. Unlike traditional centralized models of organization, Ethereum’s management is distributed across a number of stakeholders, who have to reach a rough consensus over a protocol hosting billions of dollars in value.

Ethereum’s blockocracy, those users most focused on upkeep, are the various client team developers, researchers, validators, and the Ethereum Foundation. Yet, it is not the sole responsibility of the blockocracy to keep the commons safe from overgrazing. Builders on Ethereum – those developing decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO), decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols, or non-fungible tokens (NFT) – have a responsibility, too. Ethereum can be overgrazed culturally.

Degens can be considered Ethereum’s selfish farmers, who take advantage of the permissionless nature of the commons to exploit it, adding one more cow to the field than they are supposed to, accelerating its decline. Reputation is a resource and we’re letting people squander it.

Ethereum is trapped between two sides: On one side it is seen as home to an astonishing ecosystem of innovative smart contracts designed to produce public goods (the regens) and on the other, it is known as the home of the rug pull (the degens). These sides don’t need to be in conflict, but they do need to coordinate.

Another way to frame this distinction is between missionaries and mercenaries. We believe deep down many of those who self-identify as degens do care about the ethos of Ethereum, whereas FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried and those who supported him have forgotten what a new system of value could mean – or, more realistically, never cared at all. Left to their own devices, mercenaries will see Ethereum as a place where we can simply engineer our own disasters more openly and transparently.

See also: DAOs Are the New Way of Impact Work | Opinion

Radical permissionless is sacrosanct in crypto cultures. It is non-negotiable, like decentralization or censorship resistance. Yet, there is no denying permissionless ness contributes to the deterioration of the Ethereum commons through the proliferation of scams, hacks, and hustles. Since nobody can be denied access to a blockchain at a technical level, it always comes down to the question of culture and expectations.

By believing in Ethereum as a public good, and developing a strong and robust culture around why these kinds of public infrastructure matter, we can prevent mercenaries and fortify our ecosystem for the next cycle. We can create our own future, between regen and degen, by learning to see the Ethereum ecosystem as a shared commons that needs to be tended to, not overgrazed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *