This letter is directed to the authorities of DFG, ETC Labs, and ETC Labs Core, who are an important part of the Ethereum Classic (ETC) ecosystem, but at the same time an important disruptor of norms and conventions in the processes of the network, both at the social and technical layers.
The reason for writing this letter is that the decision making process in your organization seems to be at odds with the basic ethos of decentralization and trust minimization in the ETC ecosystem and blockchain.
At the same time it has always been difficult to communicate with the decision makers of your organization because, in the front lines of debates and discussions, it is usual to interact with your employees, developers and sponsored startups, but normally they are either not the decision makers of certain actions, or sometimes are even not aware or caught by surprise by some of the group’s sudden announcements that cause important disruptions in the open source process of ETC.
In a permissionless blockchain system, it is obviously legitimate to have ambitious goals and to try to advance the company’s business objectives as efficiently as possible. I would say, it is even highly beneficial for the network to have rival groups competing to be better at the different functions, or maximizing value for themselves, because that maximizes value for the network at large, thus all participants.
However, in a world where everything tends to centralization, a constant and relentless advance in capturing all resources of a system obviously runs the risk of centralizing the system itself, and, in the new paradigm of blockchain systems, that means a significant loss of value.
The above means that corporate groups as DFG and its subsidiaries, need to understand several things:
- That trust minimization and decentralization are the main goals of ETC.
- That decentralization within blockchain open source development means that decision making is an emergent process between developers, developer companies, miners, wallet operators, other full node operators, and independent volunteers who contribute through other tasks and functions.
- That, as stated before, the more decentralized ETC is, the more value is created for all its participants. Even more so for the main development company, ETC Labs Core, and its related organizations: DFG, ETC Labs, and all the startups in its cohorts.
- That, to achieve a delicate equilibrium of business goals maximization and decentralization, your company must respect norms and conventions of open source development, especially in blockchain systems such as ETC.
To illustrate some of the actions, in the last few months, that have been controversial, but could have been done differently, respecting ETC’s norms and conventions, and perhaps even accomplishing your goals in some cases, I am describing each situation below:
- Removal of all admins in the Ethereum Project Github organization: To ask for admin access to the repo was as normal request, especially for ETC Labs who were making significant investments in ETC startups. But, to unilaterally remove all other admins was an aggressive action, with little advantages to ETC Labs. This is because a new repo with forks of the software could easily be, and was, done so the company’s goal was not accomplished. On the other hand, if the company would have explained its needs regarding the native client within the ECIP process, and proposed a new or different direction for software development, it would have certainly been heard, and very possibly effected constructive change, just for the goodwill and commitment shown by the group.
- Creation of a new ECIP process, called “ECLIPS”, within the ETC Labs Core Github repo: In the same way as with Github admins, to be unhappy, or to want a change in the ECIP process is a totally legitimate concern that your company or developers may have. However, the unilateral creation of a new ECIP process, to name it after your company, instead of retaining the ETC brand, and to fork all ECIPs there, as if assuming control of future changes, is not a way of proceeding that respects the open source process of ETC. As it was demonstrated by the work of your developers, some members of the community and myself, we were actually able to understand your group’s needs post-facto. I even wrote several articles and conducted a live call to push for a new system, called the Decentralized ECIP process, that would accommodate your requirements. Other prominent independent developers also created other tools responding to your concerns, such as the ECIPURI system by Wei Tang.
- Announcement of a change in date of the Atlantis hard fork and positioning of ETC Labs as the entity in charge of such hard fork: This last action by your company follows the same pattern as the actions above: To unilaterally make decisions on behalf of the whole ecosystem as if ETC were a private system subject to your group’s strategic needs. I would say, it is the other way around, DFG and its affiliates have to adjust to the strategic needs of ETC. This means that decisions are made in the conventional open source process, the ECIP process, and that all participants are free to gravitate to the best option willingly and voluntarily, but not forced by one of the larger entities in the ecosystem. Again, if ETC Labs, the entity in your group that posted the controversial announcement, had voiced its concerns about timing, preferably during the previous calls that were amply advertised, or on the Github “issues” section of the corresponding ECIP, it is almost certain that the dates would have been negotiated. There, is no doubt that ETC Labs is an important component of the ETC ecosystem. That, in itself, gives importance to your needs and goals and they will be heard.
Just to clarify, when I refer to “norms and conventions” in this letter, I am not referring to rules set somewhere in a legal document, or a contract that everybody is forced to follow. That is the beauty of secure proof-of-work public blockchains, that nobody has to follow anything in ETC, everybody just freely adopts the rules of the network and follows the changes and decisions that are regarded as the best for themselves and the system, not imposed by a higher force or the one with the most funding, or developers.
That is by design.
I hope, any of your officers or authorities can respond to this letter, either in public or private. My email is donald@etherplan.com. If we can do a public Discord chat, or Google Hangouts, to discuss these higher level issues, that would be even better.
