# Пов'язані статті щодо Centralization

Центр новин HTX надає останні статті та поглиблений аналіз на тему "Centralization", що охоплює ринкові тренди, оновлення проєктів, технологічні розробки та регуляторну політику в криптоіндустрії.

Will Ex-Ripple CTO Schwartz Develop Bitcoin Again? His Answer Turns Heads

David Schwartz, former Ripple CTO and key architect of the XRP Ledger, dismissed the possibility of returning to Bitcoin development, calling Bitcoin “largely a technological dead end.” He argued that Bitcoin's success is driven more by social and monetary inertia than by technological innovation at its base layer. The comments emerged from a debate on X (formerly Twitter) about centralization in crypto, where Schwartz defended XRP's early "genesis reset" by pointing to what he called more centralized incidents in Bitcoin's history, such as a coordinated rollback in 2010. Schwartz stated that blockchain technology matters less to Bitcoin’s success than its established monetary status, comparing it to the U.S. dollar. He confirmed he has no plans to develop for Bitcoin again and will instead focus on his own projects on the XRP Ledger. At the time of writing, XRP was trading at $1.38.

bitcoinist2 дні тому 19:03

Will Ex-Ripple CTO Schwartz Develop Bitcoin Again? His Answer Turns Heads

bitcoinist2 дні тому 19:03

Aster’s 5% jump: How CZ’s stake is ‘dismantling’ manipulation fears

CZ's tweet about staking Aster (ASTER) triggered a 5% price surge, countering recent declines and alleviating some market manipulation fears. The token had hit an all-time low of $0.50, with a 5% year-to-date drop in 2026, leaving many holders at a loss. CZ's endorsement boosted confidence among the top 100 holders, who control 97% of the supply. However, questions remain about whether this hype creates real value or further centralizes the token. Analysts note that sustaining momentum requires breaking the $0.70 resistance level; the coming days will determine if the gains are sustainable or a short-term spike.

ambcrypto01/25 05:01

Aster’s 5% jump: How CZ’s stake is ‘dismantling’ manipulation fears

ambcrypto01/25 05:01

Polymarket's "Hand of God": Frequent Prediction Disputes, the Black Box of Adjudication Power Under the "Centralization" Dilemma

A semantic dispute over whether the U.S. "invaded" Venezuela led to a multimillion-dollar betting outcome on Polymarket, where the "No" option was controversially settled despite real-world actions that many perceived as invasion. This incident highlights a recurring structural flaw in decentralized prediction markets: the challenge of defining "truth" for complex real-world events. Similar semantic ambiguities have repeatedly occurred on Polymarket, such as a high-stakes bet on whether Ukraine’s President Zelensky wore a suit at a specific event. While real-world evidence seemed clear, the outcome was swayed by decentralized oracle UMA’s governance mechanism, allowing token holders to vote on disputed results—sometimes enabling large players to manipulate outcomes. These cases reveal the limits of "code is law" in prediction markets. While blockchain excels at executing predefined rules trustlessly, it struggles with contextual, socially constructed events like political or military interpretations. The authority to define and settle reality ultimately remains centralized in the hands of rule-makers and arbitrators, even when execution is decentralized. Prediction markets work best for clearly defined, data-driven questions but face inherent challenges when applied to politicized or semantically ambiguous events. The core issue isn’t whether the market is decentralized, but who holds the power to define reality when consensus breaks down.

marsbit01/22 11:04

Polymarket's "Hand of God": Frequent Prediction Disputes, the Black Box of Adjudication Power Under the "Centralization" Dilemma

marsbit01/22 11:04

The Most Centralized Giant in the Crypto World Starts Selling the 'Decentralized AI' Dream

Tether, the highly centralized issuer of the USDT stablecoin, reported $13 billion in profit in 2024—far exceeding the combined revenues and losses of major AI firms like OpenAI and Anthropic. With only 150 employees, Tether earns primarily by investing user funds in U.S. Treasury bonds, profiting from the interest without paying users any yield. Now, Tether is aggressively investing in AI. It loaned over $600 million to Northern Data, Europe’s largest GPU cloud provider with over 10,000 Nvidia H100 GPUs. It also released QVAC Genesis, a massive open-source AI training dataset, and acquired Blackrock Neurotech, a brain-computer interface company, for $200 million. Total AI-related investments approach $1 billion, with potential additional deals in robotics sector. Despite its centralized control over USDT reserves and lack of external audits, Tether promotes a “decentralized AI” vision—advocating for local AI operation and individual data ownership. Critics find this ironic, given Tether’s opaque governance. Tether’s move into AI may stem from concerns over declining Treasury yields and a desire to position itself as a tech innovator. Unlike AI startups burning billions without clear profitability, Tether uses stablecoin profits to fund speculative AI bets—insulating itself from sector risks while gaining influence. The article suggests that in 2026, the best business model in AI might be not doing AI at all, but rather funding it with profits from a separate, lucrative venture.

比推01/05 14:50

The Most Centralized Giant in the Crypto World Starts Selling the 'Decentralized AI' Dream

比推01/05 14:50

Why Vitalik Buterin Says Ethereum Must Fight “Soulless” Centralization

Vitalik Buterin warns that 21st-century technological progress has enabled excessive centralization by "Big Business," "Big Government," and "Big Mob." He argues traditional checks and balances have broken down, allowing powerful actors to consolidate control. Buterin proposes "mandatory diffusion" as a solution, forcing openness and interoperability on closed systems. This includes promoting "adversarial interoperability," where third-party tools can interface with platforms without permission—such as ad blockers or decentralized financial systems. He emphasizes that active technical and policy interventions are necessary to prevent total monopolization and maintain decentralization.

TheNewsCrypto01/02 12:07

Why Vitalik Buterin Says Ethereum Must Fight “Soulless” Centralization

TheNewsCrypto01/02 12:07

Traditional Finance's On-Chain 'Open Conspiracy': Why the Crypto Embraced by Giants Is Doomed to Fail?

A warning that as traditional finance embraces blockchain, the specific form of crypto enthusiastically adopted by major financial intermediaries (exchanges, clearinghouses, banks, brokers) is likely to fail. Their approach is driven by a desire to preserve their own power and profits, not by the core principles of crypto. These institutions, with their monopolistic positions and lack of real competition, derive immense value from controlling the centralized "pipes" of the traditional financial system. Crypto represents a second, independent system built on decentralization, permissionless access, and anti-censorship—principles that inherently foster competition and threaten the entrenched dominance of these giants. When forced to adopt blockchain, these institutions will logically choose centralized, permissioned versions that allow them to retain control, rather than embracing the open, competitive nature of true decentralized networks like Ethereum. Their leadership, whose careers are built on centralization, will opt for solutions that protect their status quo. Therefore, the version of crypto they champion—a controlled, centralized mimicry—is destined to fail. The future of finance lies in a fundamentally different, decentralized architecture, not the repackaged old system.

marsbit01/02 07:22

Traditional Finance's On-Chain 'Open Conspiracy': Why the Crypto Embraced by Giants Is Doomed to Fail?

marsbit01/02 07:22

Justin Sun Watches $60M Vanish From WLFI Holdings as His Access Remains Locked

Justin Sun, an early and prominent backer of the WLFI token, remains unable to access his holdings, which have lost an estimated $60 million in value over three months. His wallet, along with 272 others, was frozen by the WLFI team in September over concerns of market manipulation, though no specific evidence was provided. While some wallets have since been unfrozen or migrated, Sun’s remains blacklisted without explanation. His 545 million WLFI tokens, once valued at over $130 million, are now worth around $74 million. The situation highlights the tension between WLFI’s decentralized branding and its centralized control, raising questions about governance and investor risk in crypto projects.

ccn.com12/23 15:37

Justin Sun Watches $60M Vanish From WLFI Holdings as His Access Remains Locked

ccn.com12/23 15:37

Lighthouses Guide the Way, Torches Claim Sovereignty: A Hidden War Over AI Allocation Rights

The article "Lighthouse Guides Direction, Torch Fights for Sovereignty: A Hidden War Over AI Allocation" by Zhixiong Pan examines the underlying power struggle in AI development, moving beyond superficial metrics like model size and performance rankings. It identifies two coexisting paradigms: the "Lighthouse," representing state-of-the-art (SOTA), centralized AI systems controlled by tech giants like OpenAI and Google, which push cognitive boundaries but are resource-intensive and create dependency risks; and the "Torch," symbolizing open-source, locally deployable models (e.g., DeepSeek, Mistral) that democratize access, ensure data sovereignty, and enable private, customizable AI assets. The Lighthouse drives innovation and sets technical directions but poses risks in accessibility, control, and single-point failures. The Torch, while shifting security and responsibility to users, offers resilience, cost stability, and compliance for critical applications in sectors like healthcare and finance. The interplay between these models forms a symbiotic relationship: Lighthouses expand capabilities, while Torches disseminate and stabilize these advances, collectively elevating AI’s baseline. Ultimately, the conflict is over AI allocation rights—defining default intelligence, managing externalities, and determining individual control. A dual strategy—using Lighthouses for frontier tasks and Torches for private, reliable deployment—is proposed as the pragmatic path forward, balancing extreme capability with broad, sovereign access. The true measure of the AI era lies not in raw power but in whether individuals possess "a light they don’t have to borrow from anyone."

marsbit12/22 11:13

Lighthouses Guide the Way, Torches Claim Sovereignty: A Hidden War Over AI Allocation Rights

marsbit12/22 11:13

1,000 Wallets Contribute 85% of Transaction Volume: Stablecoin Payments Are More Centralized Than You Think

This report analyzes stablecoin payment usage on the Ethereum network, focusing on USDT and USDC, which comprise 88% of the market. Using a filtering method to distinguish payments from other activities like DeFi, the study defines payments as transfers between externally owned accounts (EOAs). Key findings indicate that payments (EOA-to-EOA transactions) account for 47% of total stablecoin transfer volume. When further classified using wallet labels, only 23.7% of payment volume is attributed to person-to-person (P2P) transactions, while business-to-business (B2B) and internal business transfers dominate. The data also reveals significant transaction volume concentration, with the top 1,000 wallets contributing approximately 84% of all stablecoin volume. The analysis highlights challenges in identifying genuine P2P activity due to potential fake transactions, wallet mislabeling, and the prevalence of intermediary-driven "stablecoin sandwich" models. Despite growing adoption, the findings suggest that stablecoin payments remain highly centralized and institution-driven rather than being widely used for decentralized peer-to-peer transactions.

深潮12/22 06:20

1,000 Wallets Contribute 85% of Transaction Volume: Stablecoin Payments Are More Centralized Than You Think

深潮12/22 06:20

Why Crypto Cards Are Doomed to Fail?

Crypto cards are a temporary solution designed to bridge traditional payment systems with the cryptocurrency world, but they are ultimately doomed to fail. They rely on centralized banking infrastructure, depend on compliance with traditional financial regulations, and lack the privacy and decentralization that are core to crypto values. These cards function as an abstraction layer, adding extra fees and complexity while still being controlled by entities like Visa or Mastercard. They do not replace traditional payment systems but instead reinforce them. Most crypto cards operate like liquidity bridges, converting crypto to fiat for spending, which incurs taxable events and additional costs. They also fail to provide true financial inclusivity, as users from restricted countries cannot access them, contradicting crypto’s ethos of equality. While companies continue developing crypto cards to lock users into their ecosystems (e.g., MetaMask using Linea), these efforts are largely superficial, relying on third-party services like Rain for infrastructure. The only model that aligns with crypto principles is EtherFi, which allows users to spend against crypto collateral without selling assets, avoiding taxable events and embodying a true DeFi-TradFi hybrid. Ultimately, crypto cards are a flawed transitional product, not a long-term innovation.

marsbit12/12 11:38

Why Crypto Cards Are Doomed to Fail?

marsbit12/12 11:38

活动图片

Regulatory Policy

Bitcoin