The Coordination of the Ethereum Ecosystem: Balancing Decentralization and Cooperation

One major 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 working towards their own vision for the future of Ethereum. The main challenge is to ensure that all of these projects can collectively build a seemingly unified Ethereum ecosystem, rather than a multitude of incompatible small kingdoms.

In response to this challenge, many in the ecosystem have proposed the concept of "Ethereum Cohesion." This includes the coordination of values (such as maintaining open source, reducing centralization, and supporting public goods), coordination of technology (such as adhering to standards across the ecosystem), and coordination of economics (such as using ETH as a token whenever possible). However, this concept has historically been vaguely defined and may pose risks of social control: if cohesion merely means "aligning with a specific group," then this concept has already failed.

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

Key Indicators

1. Open Source Open source has two important values:

• The code is auditable to ensure security.
• Reduce the risk of proprietary technology lock-in and allow permissionless third parties to innovate.

The core infrastructure components relied upon by the ecosystem should be open source. The gold standard here is the free software definition from the Free Software Foundation and the open source definition from the Open Source Initiative.

2. Open Standards Strive to achieve interoperability with the Ethereum ecosystem, building on existing open standards (such as ERC-20, ERC-1271, etc.) and standards under development (such as account abstraction, cross-L2 transfers, L1 and L2 light client proofs, and the upcoming address format standard). When introducing new features, collaborate with others to draft new ERCs. Applications and wallets can be evaluated based on compatible ERC standards.

3. Decentralization and Security Avoid trust points, minimize censorship vulnerabilities, and reduce reliance on centralized infrastructure. Metrics include:

• "Retreat Test": If the team and server suddenly disappear, is the application still available?
• "Internal Attack Test": How much damage would occur if the team attempted to attack the system?

An important formal test is the rollup phase evaluation of a certain data platform.

4. Positive correlation

5. Contribution to Ethereum The success of the project should benefit the entire Ethereum community, even if they are not part of the ecosystem of the project itself. Specific examples include:

• Use ETH as a token to enhance its network effect.
• Contribution to open-source technology
• Committed to donating a portion of tokens or revenue to public goods in the Ethereum ecosystem.

6. Contribution to a Broader World 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 faced by humanity. Projects can achieve this in the following ways:

• Applications that bring sustainable value to a broader audience (such as financial inclusion)
• Donate to public goods that surpass Ethereum
• Technologies that can be practically applied outside of the crypto space (such as funding mechanisms, general computer security)

Obviously, the above content does not apply to every project. The metrics applicable to Layer 2, wallets, decentralized social media applications, and other projects will differ. The priority of different metrics may also change over time. For example, two years ago, having "training wheels" for Rollup was acceptable as it was still in the "early stage"; whereas today, we need to at least quickly enter the first stage. Currently, the clearest positive-sum metric is the commitment to donate a portion of tokens, and more and more projects are practicing this; in the future, we may also find metrics to measure other aspects of positive-sum.

Ideally, we would like to see more entities similar to certain data platforms emerging, tracking the performance of various projects in meeting the aforementioned standards as well as other standards proposed by the community. The competition between projects will no longer be about getting along with specific groups, but rather striving to remain consistent as much as possible under clear and understandable standards. The Ethereum Foundation should maintain a certain distance from these activities: we can provide funding for them, but should not become a part of them. Creating the next similar platform is itself a permissionless process.

This will also provide a clearer path for the Ethereum Foundation and other organizations (and individuals) interested in supporting and participating in the ecosystem, helping them decide which projects to support while maintaining neutrality. Each organization and individual can make judgments based on the criteria they value most and choose projects that meet those standards. This not only allows the Ethereum Foundation but also others to be part of the incentive force that maintains project consistency.

Only by clearly defining the "capability" can we truly become a selective system; otherwise, it is likely to turn into an exclusive and zero-sum social game. Regarding the concern of "who supervises the supervisors," the best solution is not to rely on all influential people being "angels," but to use time-tested technologies, such as the separation of powers. "Dashboard-type organizations" like certain data platforms, blockchain explorers, and other ecosystem monitors are 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 a single "supervisor," we can make this concept more effective and manifest it in the fair and inclusive manner pursued by the Ethereum ecosystem.