Vitalik Bulldozer vs Veto and the Political Coordinates They Define

Vitalik Buterin vs Veto Unpacking the Political Dimensions

Author: Vitalik Buterin; Translation: Jeanne Jiang, The SeeDAO

Usually, people always try to summarize political positions using two main dimensions: “authoritarianism vs liberalism” and “left-wing vs right-wing.” You have probably seen political coordinate graphs like this:

• FTX’s Titanic Collapse: When Funds Hit the Iceberg
• BC Technology Group Considers Selling OSL: The Crypto Exchange that Moos Money
• Microsoft’s Activision Acquisition Leveling Up to the Metaverse and Embracing the Crypto Craze!

There have been many variations of these coordinate graphs, and there is even a subreddit dedicated to memes about these graphs. I myself have created a “meta-political coordinate” that includes a smaller coordinate system for each point on the graph, describing the positions and viewpoints of people in that location.

Of course, categorizing political positions as “authoritarianism vs liberalism” and “left-wing vs right-wing” is an extremely rough oversimplification. But our human brains are very weak, lacking the ability to accurately simulate the complexity of human nature that resides within us. So, in order to understand this world, sometimes we need these extremely rough, oversimplified things. But are there any individual cases worth exploring in this domain?

Bulldozer vs Veto Divide

Let’s consider the political coordinates defined by these two opposing extremes:

Bulldozer: A single entity or group that can carry out significant actions without permission, even if they carry potential risks or destruction.

Veto: Before implementing any potentially destructive or controversial action, the consent of the majority of actors is required; these actors should have the power to veto and should possess sufficient diversity.

Note that this is different from “authoritarianism vs liberalism” or “left-wing vs right-wing.” It is possible to have authoritarianism with veto power or left-wing bulldozers, among other combinations. Examples are as follows:

The key difference between authoritarian bulldozers and authoritarian veto lies in which behavior, doing harm or preventing good, is more likely to lead the government to fail. Similarly, the key difference between liberal bulldozers and liberal veto is which behavior, in the two mentioned, is more likely to cause a private actor to fail.

Sometimes, I hear complaints. For example, some say that the reason the United States (or any other country) is regressing is because too many people use freedom as an excuse to prevent necessary reforms. But is the problem really freedom? For example, in the case of restrictive housing policies that prevent GDP from rising by 36%, isn’t it because people do not have enough freedom to build on their own land? On the other hand, if we change the statement to “veto power has gone too far,” then the viewpoint becomes much clearer. The excessive obstruction of individuals by the government and the excessive obstruction of the government by individuals are not opposing sides but two sides of the same coin.

Indeed, recently a bunch of political articles have pointed their fingers directly at the veto system, claiming it to be the root cause of many major issues.

• https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ezra-klein-on-vetocracy

• https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228469/marc-andreessen-build-government-coronavirus

• https://www.vox.com/2016/10/26/13352946/francis-fukuyama-ezra-klein

• https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/29/penn-station-robert-caro-073564

On the other hand, some politicians who usually do not respect human rights suddenly show support for freedom when it comes to being enthusiastic about Bitcoin. This often leaves people confused. Are they liberals or authoritarians? In the framework mentioned above, the answer is simple: they are bulldozers, with all the pros and cons of their position.

What are the benefits of the veto system?

Although cryptocurrency supporters often try to bring about change in a bulldozing manner, their internal governance often bears a significant resemblance to the veto system. Bitcoin governance is famously difficult to change. Some core “constitutional norms” (e.g., the 21 million coin limit) are deemed untouchable, to the extent that many Bitcoin users believe that any chain violating these rules is not Bitcoin by definition, regardless of the support it may receive.

At times, the Ethereum protocol operates in a bulldozing fashion when it comes to research. However, when it comes to governing the final stages of something that is to be actually applied to the blockchain, such as in the Ethereum EIP (Ethereum Improvement Proposal) process, a significant share of the veto system is included, although less compared to Bitcoin. As for hard forks that would involve specific applications running on the chain, i.e., unconventional changes, their governance may even entail more veto processes. After the DAO fork, no proposal attempting to “fix” certain applications by changing the code or transferring account balances was successful.

In these cases, the reasons for using the veto system are clear: it provides people with a sense of security that the platform they have built or invested in will not suddenly change the rules one day, destroying everything they have put time and money into for years. Cryptocurrency supporters often refer to the Citadel intervention in the Gamestop trading incident as an example against opaque, centralized (also bulldozing) manipulation. Web2 developers often complain about centralized platforms suddenly changing their APIs, without any regard for the damage it may cause to the startups built around them. And, of course, there’s the case of….

Vitalik Buterin, a victim of bulldozing

Vitalik Buterin #MoreInterestingBackground: I was born in Russia in 1994 and moved to Canada for school in 2000. During the years 2007-2010, I happily played World of Warcraft, but one day Blizzard nerfed the damage of my beloved Warlock’s Drain Life spell. I cried myself to sleep. It was on that day that I realized the horrors centralized services can bring. Soon after, I decided to delete my account and quit.

Okay, if we say that the nerfing of Life Drain in Warcraft directly inspired me to establish Ethereum, that would be a bit of an exaggeration, but the infamous patch that ruined my beloved Warlock and my reaction at the time were definitely real!

Similarly, the reason behind the adoption of veto power in the political field is quite clear: in the early 20th century, there were some bulldozer-like strongmen, some not well-known and some notorious, who frequently engaged in destructive extremist behavior. Veto power is a response to such extreme behavior.

So, what is the conclusion?

The main purpose of this point is to summarize a coordinate axis, rather than to support a specific position. If there are any similarities between the “bulldozer vs. veto power” and “liberalism vs. authoritarianism” axes, it is that they both inevitably contain subtle differences and contradictions: just like in a free society, where some people voluntarily join internally authoritarian companies (yes, even many economically comfortable individuals make such choices), many social movements adopt veto power internally, but exhibit bulldozer-like behavior in relation to the outside world.

However, when it comes to bulldozer and veto power, people can generally believe the following judgments:

There is too much veto power in the physical world, but too much bulldozer behavior in the digital world, and there is no digital space that can truly isolate bulldozers (hence: why do we need blockchain?).

Changing the status quo requires going through a bulldozer-like process in order to create lasting change, but protecting this change requires the support of veto power. This process can only occur in a certain optimal proportion; too much will lead to chaos, and too little will result in stagnation.

Some key institutions should be protected by strong veto power, and the existence of these institutions enables bulldozers to achieve positive change while providing something dependable that cannot be destroyed by bulldozers.

In particular, the underlying layer of blockchain should adopt veto power, but governance at the application layer should leave more room for bulldozer behavior. Better economic mechanisms (quadratic voting? Harberger tax?) can allow us to reap the benefits of both veto power and bulldozers without incurring high costs.

When we think about non-governmental forms of human organization (whether it’s for-profit companies, non-profit organizations, blockchain, or others), the “bulldozer vs. veto power” axis is particularly useful. These systems are relatively easy to exit (compared to governments), which confines discussions about their “liberalism vs. authoritarianism” nature. So far, people have not really found many ways to differentiate blockchain, or even centralized technological platforms, along the “left-wing vs. right-wing” axis (although I would love to see more attempts at left-leaning crypto projects!). On the other hand, the “veto power vs. bulldozer” axis has always been able to effectively reflect non-governmental structures, allowing discussions about these increasingly important new forms of non-governmental structures to continue.

Translation:
Two empty paragraph tags.

We will continue to update Blocking; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!