Consequences of Consequentialism: How Trolley Switchers Derailed Decentralization
summary
Argues that consequentialist reasoning pushes projects to centralize: examples include the DAO 3.6M ETH rollback and later parity freeze incidents where balances are edited, and trade-off decisions around FTX/Alameda/Serum on Solana and permissioned licenses (Zcash). Presents a quick poll result 15 yes 12 no on the trolley problem, contrasts utilitarian tradeoffs with Monero’s rule-based commitment to privacy and no trusted setup, and claims those rules preserved decentralization where consequence-driven choices produced concentration and moral hazard.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (7)
- 0:00Introduction
- 3:33Monero’s philosophy
- 9:58Consequentialism in crypto
- 16:44Problems with consequentialism
- 23:53Ethereum’s DAO fork
- 31:44Decentralization’s weakness
- 34:15Conclusion
related talks
07mHow to Test for Decentralization
25mWeb3: Decentralization in the Information Age
32mAnarchy, Truth and Justice
51mPermissions: Centralized or Decentralized? Both!
31mToken Engineering Panel
46mThat's How You Get a Dystopia
41mWhy Software Engineers Disagree About Everything
01mThe d/acc Dilemma: Principles for Collaborating with Ethereum Projects