The Triangle of Power: The New Balance of "Control and Freedom" Demonstrated by Blockchain

As technology accelerates society, the same problems recur—how to seek progress without being controlled by the very forces that create that progress.

The Three Monsters and the Modern Dilemma

In our era, three major forces exist. The first is big corporations. They drive technological innovation but also foster addiction among users and monopolize markets. The second is big government. It provides public services and maintains order, but can arbitrarily decide winners and losers, potentially restricting freedom of speech and thought. The third is the power of the crowd—holding the potential of civil society but also prone to falling into populism, leading to vigilante justice and cultural homogenization.

From the perspective of the Passive Consciousness Hypothesis, we need mechanisms to actively oppose these three forces, rather than passively adapting to environments shaped by them. The current system deprives us of choices and subjugates us to a single dominant force, hindering the natural freedom of human consciousness.

Companies become “profit-maximizing machines,” widening the gap from social value. The video game industry, once driven by fun, now relies on slot-machine-like mechanisms. Reward systems within games become complex, unconsciously guiding players toward in-app purchases. This is a typical example of how corporations distort the environment.

Governments should be the “rule-makers” through legislation, but often become “participants in the game.” As their scale increases, so does their capacity for distortion.

The crowd is not an assembly of independent organizations but transforms into a single organism manipulated by a single leader—much like the frenzy of the French Revolution.

Why Does Economies of Scale Create Imbalances?

A crucial shift occurred at the turn of the 20th to the 21st century. Previously, diseconomies of scale naturally prevented the concentration of power. Vast territories, difficulty of movement, and dispersed information served as natural brakes.

But now:

• Automation: Global tasks are completed by a small number of people.
• Proprietary technology: Control rights are monopolized while only usage rights are granted.
• Network effects: Small early advantages are exponentially amplified.

Minor differences in the initial stages evolve into overwhelming dominance over time. Cheaters run faster, while turtles lose hope of catching up.

The former “diffusion effects”—reverse engineering of technology, talent mobility, and catching up between nations—no longer function effectively.

The Path for Decentralization to Survive

The solution is simple: institutionalize forced diffusion.

Stage One: Enforce Compatibility

The EU’s USB-C standardization exemplifies this. It hampers the construction of proprietary ecosystems and preserves user choice.

Stage Two: Counteractive Interoperability

Allow new tools to connect without permission from existing platforms. Alternatives to social media clients, ad blockers, independent repair services—these bypass centralized bottlenecks, much like Sci-Hub challenges the monopoly of academic publishing.

Stage Three: Cooperation through Diversity

Open-source communities, federated nations, DAOs—organizational forms without a single ruler. Lido on Ethereum is a good example. It holds 24% of staking volume but reduces concerns through a decentralized design via DAO governance. Multiple node operators, dual governance, stakeholder veto rights—these are ways to lower the leverage of power.

From Passive to Active—A New Ethic

Old ethics were binary: “Don’t become strong” or “Be strong.”

A new ethic is different: Do not hold power. But empower others.

Minimize the potential to seize power while actively creating influence. This is the only way to overcome the Passive Consciousness Hypothesis.

Projects should now be designed not only as business models but also as decentralized models. How to avoid becoming nodes of power concentration and how to address the risks of power accumulation—these will be the long-term competitive advantages.

D/acc: Protecting a Multipolar World

Multilateralism faces the “fragile world hypothesis.” Dispersing power increases the number of destructive actors—risks of multiple individuals capable of causing harm to all humanity.

Therefore, Defensive Accelerationism (D/acc) is necessary. Develop both offensive and defensive technologies, and make them fully open. Defense mechanisms accessible to everyone, with no rulers.

Such defensive technologies can reduce the demand for power monopolization driven by fears of concentration.

Conclusion: Power Balance is Designed

The real issue of the 21st century is not the existence of power but how to prevent its concentration.

Blockchain and Web3 offer one answer—mechanisms that distribute power at the protocol level without relying on centralized servers.

But technology alone is insufficient. Policy, culture, and ethics must change simultaneously.

A society that seeks progress but is not controlled by those who carry that progress—such a society does not emerge by chance. It must be intentionally designed and continuously maintained.