Success of modularity depends on people not technology Opinion

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial team.

The modular blockchain movement is gaining significant momentum. Numerous new participants are introducing innovative solutions aimed at achieving maximum decentralization, security, and scalability. The technology is robust, inventive, and, most importantly, adaptable. In the near future, developers will have the ability to construct complex, scalable dApps without the restrictions of traditional blockchain infrastructure.

As we continue to establish connections between layers through technical integrations, it is essential to promote off-chain collaboration to sustain this growth. As pioneers of the modular movement, we must ask ourselves: How can we optimize our systems to not only facilitate individual progress but also collective advancement?

Promoting an environment of ongoing, productive discussion is crucial for our success. Decentralized governance must evolve within the modular paradigm to support this collaborative and sustainable growth.

The emergence of blockchain modularity raises new questions and considerations regarding what constitutes optimal blockchain governance. While similar on- and off-chain mechanisms as monolithic blockchains can be utilized at the protocol level, the results can have a ripple effect throughout a modular ecosystem.

In this new paradigm, decentralized governance has the potential to appear vastly different and will undoubtedly be more complex. For the modular thesis to succeed, a mechanism that helps to maintain coherence between different layers of the stack must be established.

We are dealing with emerging technologies that will undergo numerous iterations as systems are refined, and software becomes more advanced. As the technology progresses, more attention must be given to how various entities come together to build something truly powerful.

We are at an early stage where we have yet to see what such a scenario might look like, but it is one we need to anticipate. Establishing sustainable alignment between these systems will determine the true viability of blockchain modularity.

How should a protocol’s decentralized governance frameworks evolve to strike a balance between its own community and the collective interests of the modular ecosystem? One source of inspiration is the governance of open-source software, which has evolved over decades.

When a monolithic blockchain upgrades, the entire stack moves as one. While monolithic chains may tout this as an advantage, they are arguably closer to the “closed source” paradigms of web2 than many care to admit. Developers must conform to new infrastructure, regardless of whether it is optimal for their dApp. Within a modular paradigm, developers have a greater degree of choice over how their dApp is composed at every layer, giving them greater autonomy over what they create.

Developing open and collaborative infrastructure fosters greater resiliency and trust among the developers who elect to build on it. In this regard, modularity shares strong parallels with the open-source approach to software development.

Linux is a prime example. An open-source framework with decades of tooling, libraries, and resources, Linux is effectively one of the greatest demonstrations of decentralized software we have seen in our time. It is upgraded by a global community, free from shutdown risks, and versatile in building a variety of applications.

Just as the open source movement has played an essential role in the global technological infrastructure of today, the modular approach is a natural and essential part of the evolution of the web3 landscape. And the drawbacks are similar—when a modular protocol upgrades, the stack risks fragmentation if not planned and governed effectively. However, the ubiquity and success of open-source software prove that effective governance is possible. It is simply a matter of collaboration in its design.

On a macro level, we must remind ourselves that modular layers are inherently interdependent; they cannot stand alone. This means communication and cooperation are fundamental to the progress of this movement. Modularity will arguably require more governance, not less.

Stability comes from culture. Off-chain governance must perpetually create a culture that rewards rational and reasonable discourse, whether technical or public. It must center around a shared purpose and vision of what the technology is ultimately being built for. Imagine a system of decentralized off-chain governance that existed between different modular protocols as well—a soft-power social framework that helps establish a level of consensus around shared goals and objectives.

Strong systems must exist at the ecosystem level of every protocol. Environments where levels of debate, consensus, and action can be reached within a decentralized community. It could help foster greater alignment both within and between protocols as these technologies evolve.

On-chain governance has a distinct role here as well, as developers need a system that is as reliable and enforceable at the dApp level, as the protocol level. We are actively experimenting with developing on-chain governance mechanisms that can help dApp developers make these upgradability decisions. While in very early iterations, the intent is to address the complexities of the upgrading process within a modular framework. It is an experiment in what developers need to consider when the foundation beneath them shifts.

Blockchain modularity is rapidly gaining momentum as an alternative to the monolithic framework as the industry standard. More and more protocols have been developed at every level of the stack, promising more efficient and scalable solutions that can power the most sophisticated of dApps.

The modular paradigm is necessarily underpinned by a more collaborative approach to decentralized technology where it was previously considered more competitive. For it to succeed, we need to begin asking critical questions about how we collaborate effectively and optimally to reach our shared goals.