Archive for the ‘Decentralization’ Category

The Social Economics of the Old Stone Jug – The Colgate Maroon-News

In 1932, economist Clark Warburton published an article through The American Academy of Political and Social Science analyzing the economic impacts of the American Prohibition Era. Contrary to popular belief, he argued that the nationwide ban on the sale of alcohol had limited economic practicality people would continue businesses as usual so long as they could access alcohol on their own. In other words, the economic effects were generally overestimated insofar as the efficacy of the Prohibition was also overestimated.

In the most rudimentary sense, this logic is just as applicable to the social economics of Hamilton, N.Y.s Old Stone Jug.

Most sophomores and upperclassmen of Colgate University understand the importance of the Jug within the Hamiltonian social scene. For years, it has provided students with an accessible and reliable outlet as the primary social space in town. But current first-years largely only understand the Jug via stories, rumors and word of mouth. Since the beginning of the new academic year, the Jug has remained closed. Beyond speculation, there have been no concrete answers as to why.

While the reasons for the closure are presently unknowable, the social impacts of this change are not. The elimination of Hamiltons 18+ dance club is sure to have a major effect on the party scene. One may be inclined to believe that the practical effects are obvious a decrease in social options necessitates a decrease in the social life itself. Partying and late-night excursions would presumably decrease. But, as Warburton explained, we must remind ourselves that a limit on an economic want is only strong if the people cannot access it on their own.

To understand the Jug as an economic actor, one must frame it vis--vis the social paradigm of Colgate. This is to say Colgate students create a particular type of demand for outlets such as the Jug. It is no secret that the Universitys social life can be, at times, restrictive. Greek Life Organizations (GLOs) remain a dominant force in this sense and are, by definition, exclusive. Colgates Panhellenic Council estimates that there are roughly 600 students involved in sororities alone this year, which amounts to nearly 20 percent of the entire student body. With limited exceptions, the remaining students face difficulties accessing this side of campus life. In these ways, the impermeability of Greek life acts as an amplifier to a Jug-prompted shortage of social options on campus.

So, what happens when there is a surplus of restrictions on campus social life? It is a decentralization of campus social outlets. As opposed to a centralized location the Jug for after-hours activities, students now gather late at night in smaller pockets across campus. These include residence hall study areas, the outer vicinity of the 113 Broad Street Complex and other localized hotspots likely unbeknownst to the general student body.

This trend of decentralization has serious implications as late-night social activities now occur with no regulation. Property damage correlated to these mini-gatherings is more likely to occur. Curtis Hall residents are familiar with the consistent damage charges that result from uncontrolled activity late at night.

The residence hall at 113 Broad Street is a particularly interesting case study. Any residents of 113 or the surrounding area have likely noticed the loud and wild gatherings taking place there on weekends. One can find boomboxes at maximum volume playing club-style music and swaths of first-years dancing fanatically. Perhaps the most conspicuous detail is the number of students openly carrying the infamous red college party cups. This is categorically bolder and more risky than previous decentralized attempts at party life, endemic to the strong desire by first-years to reclaim it. It is as if the Jug was never closed, but simply relocated.

My argument is that the Jug was necessary in controlling this type of chaos. The Jug, if nothing else, was a united hub for nightly activity. It ensured consistency, routine and as a consequence some degree of order. At the very least, after-hours activities were concentrated on a particular schedule and location. This, I believe, has two important implications for safety.

Firstly, by virtue of routine, it enables students to adapt to consistent expectations: individuals know exactly how wild the party scene will get, they know where their friends are if they get lost and will not find themselves in a new environment. It is common knowledge that new environments are most dangerous for students who are not in the right state of mind. The decentralization of social life likely proliferates this danger.

Secondly, there was some level of tacit authority implicit in the Jug. There are adults who, by owning a social space, have some degree of liability for the safety of customers. Furthermore, Campus Safety officers know exactly where students will gravitate at night, adding an extra safety net in the case of a medical emergency.

There were inherent problems with the Old Stone Jug as a function of student social life. This is no secret; there will always be a degree of uncertainty in the context of these settings. But, if the student population is a polity, the Jug was Hobbes Leviathan a de facto system of regulation that became central in an environment of limited alternatives. Without it, we observe an unregulated, anarchic state of decentralized social uncertainty.

Continued here:

The Social Economics of the Old Stone Jug - The Colgate Maroon-News

Wait. Did Education Reform Just Become Inescapable? – The 74

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

The Washington Posts Jennifer Rubin published a piece not that long ago arguing that Democrats have an opportunity on K-12 issues:

Democrats would be wise to reclaim the issue of K-12 education, starting with a recognition that the United States has long been falling behind international competitors and suffered another blow with COVID. They might consider a multipronged approach at both the state and federal levels.

Rubins argument is intuitive: theres ample evidence that the pandemic left U.S. kids academically and socially reeling. Theres also proof that American families are worried about their kids well-being and academic progress.

Related

As kids struggle, as parents and caregivers fret, some prominent conservatives are currently exploring whether public schools can be meaningfully improved if we give enough families public vouchers for private schools and/or if we can figure out precisely which books to ban. These are not serious responses to the problems and anxieties most American families face. Democrats would benefit if they offered something more substantive than this low bar.

But what? Rubin suggests a three-pronged framework. Democrats should:

Its a reasonable starting point. Education funding increases improve public schools. Teacher pay is low, relative to other professions requiring extensive credentialing, and it hasnt increased enough to keep pace with inflation. U.S. teacher training programs are not particularly effective, particularly when it comes to preparing candidates to teach students to read.

The educational benefits of decentralization are less obvious: U.S. history is pretty clear that local control of schools often sustains inequities and fosters civil rights abuses. Absent top-down pressure to focus on equity, local (and state) decisionmakers regularly default to decisions that are convenient, comfortable and bad for historically marginalized communities.

Funding inequities generally thrive under decentralization. The erosion of federal pressure to integrate schools gave local authorities room to resegregate schools through housing policies, gerrymandered enrollment zones and other surreptitious changes. Combine these trends, and its easy to see how funding inequities are systemically racializedits easier to underfund children of colors educational opportunities when Black and brown children have been concentrated into segregated campuses.

Still, theres some promise in a governance approach along the lines that Rubin suggests: giving local authorities more room to innovate on process while holding them accountable for showing evidence of academic improvement.

But wait. Does that idea sound familiar? It should. Arne Duncan, President Obamas first secretary of education, famously described his reform strategy as tight on goals, loose on means. This tight-loose approach is also a key facet of the public charter school model and its delivered some real improvements for kids.

This is the trouble with the opportunity that Rubin outlines: her new education platform for Democrats sounds an awful lot like the (again, constantly dying) education reform movement. The playbook sounds a whole lot like Duncans old reform one: more funding with tighter goals and more flexibility for how schools and districts reach them.

Same goes for Rubins push to raise teacher pay and standardsthats an echo of core reform initiatives like former DC Public Schools chancellor Michelle Rhees effort to reshape the capitals teaching force. And the reformers over at the National Council on Teacher Quality have been pushing to improve teacher preparation programs for years.

Say it plain: thats why Democrats will struggle to retake command of K12 education as a political issue. Even though education reform is politically stalled after a decade of criticism and the utterly toxic embrace of Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump theres no alternative, actionable progressive slate of ideas to improve schools.

Related

Its true that Democratic policymakers have some education policy ideas. California and other blue places have launched models for community schools offering wraparound social services like health, nutrition, dental and career-training services. Early education investments like universal pre-K remain popular with progressives (and several conservatives).

But none of these progressive ideas provide a theory of action to address unfairness and dysfunction in K12 schools. Theyre all Very Good Things with solid evidentiary support from prior studies (and support from reformers like Duncan and Rhee, incidentally). They just dont address the core challenge of improving you might even say, reforming the foundations of elementary and secondary education in the United States.

Why is this so difficult? Its partly because reforms ideas arent as substantively useless as their political unpopularity suggests. For all the angry discourse about standardized tests, for instance, they generate data that protect students civil rights and provide key proof points for lawsuits identifying how states or districts school funding choices harm families of color.

The real reason that progressives cant quit reform, though, is that we havent yet figured out how to dissolve a core tension in our public education thinking. On the one hand, progressives have grown correctly suspicious of the structural biases built into public systems. On the other hand, progressives are prone to waxing nostalgic about the fragile, diminishing greatness of American public schools. Many of us tend to imagine that this system was, at some point before No Child Left Behind or Teach For America or the Reagan administration, etc., a shining exemplar of democratic investment in fairness and social mobility.

This tension makes progressives stalwart defenders of public education as a concept, so much so that we generally resist efforts to substantially overhaul its governance as attacks on public education. But its also clear that the long history of American public education is saturated with examples of schools replicating and amplifying social inequities. Some of the most sacred elements of American public education have reliably served as toxic firewalls against progress towards racial justice in the United States.

To move beyond education reform, progressives need to face this uncomfortable incoherence in our thinking. Our post-reform public education platform cant just be about adding grades in the early years and enveloping K12 schools with more social services. Sure, public schools could use deeper resources and broader systems of support. But many of the central mechanisms of the K12 system are themselves unfair against communities of color, low-income families, linguistically diverse childrenand other historically marginalized groups. Schools wont serve those students better without being made to do so.

If Democrats want the political benefits of credibility on public education, they need to center, and solve for, those inequities. And if their best proposals for doing so keep circling back to education reform ideas, perhaps thats a hint that they abandoned that movement too early.

Dr. Conor P. Williams is a senior fellow at The Century Foundation and a partner at the Childrens Equity Project. He is also a working father with three kids. These views are his alone, and are not necessarily shared by his employersor his kids.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Read more:

Wait. Did Education Reform Just Become Inescapable? - The 74

XRP Decentralization Debates and Its Inflationary Token Distribution – BTC Peers

The debates around XRP's decentralization and inflationary distribution have been ongoing within the cryptocurrency community. As the third largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, XRP possesses unique properties that separate it from the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum. Understanding the arguments from both sides can shed light on the future of this controversial digital asset.

Critics point out that XRP was created by the company Ripple and a majority of the total supply is still held by them. This leads to claims that XRP is centralized, with Ripple able to potentially manipulate the price and blockchain. Unlike Bitcoin and Ethereum which have thousands of nodes, the XRP ledger only has a few authorized validators approved by Ripple. There are also concerns about Ripple halting transactions and rolling back ledger states if needed. The high degree of control by a single company is seen by many as going against the ethos of decentralization.

On the other side, proponents argue that the XRP ledger is open source and anyone can run a validator node. The list of validators is also increasingly diversified as Ripple reduces its share. No single entity, including Ripple, can unilaterally control the ledger. XRP is also traded on numerous independent digital asset exchanges. Furthermore, Ripple hopes to eventually fully decentralize XRP over time and is releasing more tokens into the open market. The technology and governance structure may allow for greater decentralization moving forward.

A key criticism of XRP is the fact that 100 billion tokens were created at inception, with a large portion held by Ripple. This "pre-mine" and founder's reward goes against the culture of other cryptos like Bitcoin that were more fairly launched. It grants excessive power to founders who can sell their tokens and potentially crash the price. Having a controlling share also raises fears of price manipulation by founders looking to take advantage of retail investors for personal gain.

Unlike Bitcoin's fixed supply, XRP releases a small number of new tokens each year. This worries some that it could lead to inflation and reduce scarcity. However, the inflation rate is fixed at a negligible rate unlikely to affect the token price. Ripple also locks up unused tokens to control the circulating supply. While not as deflationary as Bitcoin, many believe the predictably low inflation makes XRP functionally "fixed" supply for all practical purposes.

As XRP increases adoption for cross-border payments, regulatory concerns may necessitate decentralization. Market forces may also demand Ripple reduce its control as a condition for institutional investment. If Ripple executes well on technical roadmaps to enable decentralized control and governance, XRP could potentially transition to a permissionless blockchain. However, some question whether Ripple has incentives to fully give up authority over such a valuable asset. The coming years will determine whether decentralization can win out over corporate interests.

The high profile lawsuit alleges Ripple conducted an unregistered securities offering by selling XRP tokens. A ruling affirming this could greatly impact XRP, potentially classifying it as an illegal security. However, many experts believe the "Howey Test" shows XRP behaves as a currency rather than a security. Settlement is also likely given the nuances. Still, the lawsuit highlights the risks of XRP's centralized control. Regardless of outcome, it may accelerate decentralization efforts and require concessions from Ripple. The company's flexibility and willingness to compromise will shape XRP's ability to comply with regulations.

In conclusion, XRP's non-traditional origins and current governance invoke reasoned debates within blockchain circles. While its creators feel central control is justified, decentralization proponents await stronger technical and legal assurances. Moving forward, XRP's progress on these fronts will determine if it can bridge the gap between corporate and community interests. Striking the right balance will enable XRP to keep gaining adoption as a fast and efficient means of value transfer through tried and tested infrastructure.

Original post:

XRP Decentralization Debates and Its Inflationary Token Distribution - BTC Peers

Lido Finance ETH Staking Nears 33%; Alarming for Decentralization – The Coin Republic

Blockchain brings revolutionary and harmless solutions to help develop new technologies and adapt existing ones. One key factor in blockchain tech is decentralization, which became its synonym. The broader decentralization finance (DeFi) has the inherent way of a democratic financial system. Ethereum, being the first of such blockchain networks, saw the rise of DeFi protocols and budding decentralization that now, the community thinks, is in jeopardy.

In the past several days, the discussion around Lido Finance being the biggest Ethereum staker saw an increase. This came at a point when some prominent ETH staking protocols reportedly committed or were preparing to commit the self-limit rule of 22%.

Amid this 22% self-limiting ETH staking provision, the issue of Lido Finances current Ethereum staking came into the mainstream discussion. The liquid staking protocol is the biggest on the Ethereum blockchain and accounts for about 32.4% of the overall staked ETH, according to the Dune Analytics data.

The staking mechanism over the decentralized protocols is meant to provide a better alternative to the traditional governance system. The regime was expected to work smoothly keeping the underlying decentralization intact. But it gets disturbed with the more control getting amassed to a single entity.

Ethereum community members considered the issue a threat to the decentralization of the blockchain network and called out over social media.

In an X (formerly Twitter) post on Friday, the chief decentralization officer at Ethereum, Evan Van Ness, stated Lido Finance as the biggest attack on Ethereums decentralization. Historically the protocol is on its way to breach 33% of all the staked Ethereum and yet no one is talking about it.

Prominent Ethereum investor Ryan Berckman posted a long tweet and talked about the threat to Ethereum from the growing centralization of Lido.

Berckman expressed concerns that Lidos uncapped dominance uniquely poses a threat to Ethereums reputation as a decentralized blockchain. He also raised the possibility that this dominance could potentially impact the long-term valuation of ETH. Berckman urged that addressing this issue is crucial to safeguarding these goals from being hindered.

Berckman conveyed that if such a scenario were to occur, it could potentially influence the rate of their growth significantly. Consequently, it might also impact the benefits Ethereum brings to humanity and the numerical value of ETHs long-term valuation.

More here:

Lido Finance ETH Staking Nears 33%; Alarming for Decentralization - The Coin Republic

Preserving Decentralization: The Center Consortium’s Governance … – BTC Peers

Decentralization is a foundational principle of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. However, as stablecoins like USD Coin gain popularity, balancing decentralization with efficiency presents unique governance challenges. The Centre Consortium, led by Circle and Coinbase, aims to uphold USD Coin's decentralization through its inclusive governance model.

Stablecoins like USD Coin peg their value to fiat currencies or assets outside the crypto market. This reduces volatility, enabling use cases like global money transfers and blockchain-based financial services. However, without proper governance, stablecoins could concentrate power and undermine decentralization.

The Centre Consortium formed in 2018 to govern USD Coin (USDC) issuance and policymaking. Its founders, Circle and Coinbase, aimed to create a transparent, decentralized model, avoiding control by a single institution. The consortium operates autonomously, guided by its commitment to:

Centre's open, distributed governance model promotes decentralization. Here's how it works:

In governing USD Coin, the Centre Consortium must continually balance competing needs:

As USD Coin gains ground, Centre's foundational principles will be tested. Two key questions loom:

With greater adoption comes pressure to optimize efficiency over decentralization. Centre must reinforce its commitment to distributed governance as USDC expands. Failing to do so could undermine trust in USD Coin as a decentralized stablecoin.

Financial regulators are increasingly focused on stablecoins. This may require Centre to implement compliance processes that seem at odds with decentralization. However, thoughtful design could satisfy regulations without consolidating power over USDC.

The Centre Consortium's inclusive approach to governing USD Coin provides a model for decentralized stability amid volatile crypto markets. But maintaining this balance long-term will require continuous reaffirmation of its guiding principles. If Centre can achieve this enabling USDC's growth while resisting re-centralization it will offer valuable insights for the governance of decentralized systems.

The rest is here:

Preserving Decentralization: The Center Consortium's Governance ... - BTC Peers