Part 1 – Introducing the Problem

The Invisible Politics of Blockchain Upgrades: Unraveling the Governance Crisis

In the high-stakes terrain of public blockchain networks, one issue remains both critical and consistently downplayed: how core protocol upgrades are decided, implemented, and contested. While terms like "hard fork" and "soft fork" have become part of the rite-of-passage vocabulary for blockchain developers and node operators, the deeper governance mechanisms—or lack thereof—underpinning these forks remain dangerously underexplored.

At surface level, a hard fork is a debate turned into a technical schism. But beneath the consensus algorithm and version numbers lie fundamentally unresolved questions: Who decides what gets changed? Who enforces it? And who gets left behind?

Historically, forks have been mischaracterized as mere technical progressions rather than political acts fused into code. The DAO hack in 2016—or more accurately, the contentious Ethereum hard fork that followed—wasn't just a bug fix. It was a rupture in shared values, a redistribution of power framed within software updates. Since then, similar upgrade-related ideological divides have played out across Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum Classic, and countless smaller chains, each surfacing core fractures in community cohesion.

But what makes this issue uniquely dangerous today is the rise of “governance theater”—the illusion of community consensus in decentralized systems. Many chains showcase voting, discussion forums, and delegate systems, while real decision-making often occurs privately among core developers, venture capital backers, or L1 foundations. This mismatch between perceived decentralization and de facto centralization becomes critical when upgrade conflicts emerge.

For example, overly optimistic governance token models can exacerbate plutocracy. Look no further than platforms in the DeFi governance space like PyrFi, where token distribution, quorum thresholds, and voter apathy compound, leaving protocol evolution in the hands of a few whales. Even delegative designs tend to concentrate voting power rather than disperse it.

In absence of formalized upgrade governance, forks remain the de facto conflict-resolution mechanism—an inherently adversarial and fracturing process. That’s not just inefficient; it’s antithetical to the ideals of protocol composability and developer alignment that decentralized applications rely on. And with rollups, appchains, and modular stack layers now pushing scalability narratives, governance fragmentation at the protocol level threatens upstream stability.

This dynamic raises one unavoidable question: can blockchain networks evolve without splitting their communities apart each time consensus is challenged? In the following sections, we’ll dissect attempts at formalizing upgrade governance and explore whether decentralization can truly be preserved in the face of protocol mutability.

Part 2 – Exploring Potential Solutions

Decentralized Governance Mechanisms: Evolving Solutions to Fork-Related Gridlock

As blockchain ecosystems mature, network upgrades remain a contentious governance frontier—often culminating in irreversible hard forks or precarious soft forks. The crypto-native response has been deeply experimental, with a range of innovative frameworks emerging to mitigate coordination breakdowns before these fracture points appear. Yet each solution, no matter how elegant in theory, surfaces its own complexity when deployed on-chain.

On-chain governance frameworks, like those championed by Tezos or Polkadot, attempt to internalize governance decisions within the protocol. Proposals are voted on by token holders, and changes are automatically enacted if passed. While this reduces reliance on social consensus and external developer coordination, it creates challenges around voter apathy, plutocratic influence, and the risk of governance attacks via token concentration. Quadratic voting and reputation-weighted voting have been proposed to address these imbalances, but implementation remains uneven across ecosystems.

Meta-governance DAOs represent another theoretical evolution—governance over governance. These are higher-order DAOs that arbitrate how other DAOs and protocols execute upgrades or parameter changes. Projects like CurveDAO have faced criticism as meta-governance privilege slowly consolidates among large veCRV holders, highlighting the fragility of maintaining “decentralized neutrality” when influence is token-weighted.

Time-locked governance changes, especially ones using timelock contracts before the implementation of critical proposals, provide an attempt at predictable and reversible upgrades. This has gained traction as a UX strategy that softens transitions, yet time-delay mechanisms are often seen by some as too slow in high-risk scenarios (e.g., critical bug fixes). For an in-depth analysis of this mechanism in smart contracts, refer to The Overlooked Importance of Time-Lock Mechanisms in Enhancing Smart Contract Security.

Emergent systems like PyrFi aim to integrate behavioral economics directly into governance participation by aligning incentives with active voting and proposal creation through reward structures. By capturing sustained engagement rather than one-time token weight, PyrFi addresses the voter apathy epidemic. However, critics argue such mechanisms risk being gamed or creating dependency loops—an issue discussed in PyrFi Under Fire Key Criticisms Explored.

Off-chain signaling, in contrast, has seen a renaissance due to the low-risk nature of discourse platforms like Snapshot or off-chain temp checks. However, these mechanisms—being advisory—often lack enforceability and rely heavily on social consensus or the will of a core dev group to act accordingly. This ambiguity was the crux of several controversial forks in major ecosystems.

Emerging innovations promise more legitimate decentralization without burdening users with hyper-complex mechanics. But whether they scale trustlessly without reintroducing hidden centralization remains an open question.

The next section will transition from theory to practice—with a breakdown of how select Layer-1s and DAO protocols are implementing, trialing, or outright abandoning these governance innovations.

Part 3 – Real-World Implementations

Real-World Implementations of Fork Governance: Experiments, Failures, and Lessons Learned

Implementing effective governance in the context of blockchain forks—whether soft or hard—has sparked divergent approaches across protocols. Ethereum Classic, for instance, is itself the direct result of a community fracture over an exploitable vulnerability and the decision to hard fork after the DAO hack. Yet, this contentious hard fork exposed a lingering philosophical divide: is code law, or should community governance override immutability? Ethereum moved forward with the upgrade; Ethereum Classic preserved the original chain—a decision that still governs its culture and technical roadmap.

Polkadot took a different route by embedding forkless upgrades via its Substrate framework. Instead of relying on contentious user-activated forks, Polkadot enables runtime upgrades through on-chain governance. While elegant in theory, this introduces centralization risks if governance token distribution becomes too concentrated. Several community members have flagged concerns over parachain slot auctions favoring well-capitalized actors. Despite the technical success of forkless upgrades, the social layer remains susceptible to plutocratic influence.

Meanwhile, PyrFi attempted to bridge governance decentralization with dynamic on-chain proposal thresholds, adapting based on voter turnout and asset dispersion. This model aims to reduce apathy-driven centralization, but it's far from frictionless. During one notable upgrade proposal, a governance bug allowed a high-balance wallet to bypass the adaptive quorum threshold, leading to a soft fork that fractured multiple dApps built atop the platform. These incidents have raised technical and reputational concerns within the community. For a full breakdown of these challenges, see PyrFi Under Fire: Key Criticisms Explored.

On the user-friendly side, Cardano’s project Catalyst was designed to crowdsource governance decisions, including upgrade votes, from ADA holders. However, participation has stagnated despite low technical barriers, suggesting that user-centric governance still struggles without incentives or education. The frequent criticism points to symbolic decentralization rather than substantive inclusivity.

Cosmos adopted a hybrid path where governance-approved proposals act as preconditions for software upgrades, relying on validators to execute them. While this avoids Ethereum-like hard forks, it introduces reliance on validator coordination, which—if misaligned—can lead to silent chain splits.

Each of these implementations embodies trade-offs between minimization of disruption, decentralization of power, and participant coordination. Observers looking to extract patterns from these experiments should note that governance, not code execution, is proving the more intractable challenge. The next section will explore how these governance dynamics may evolve and whether truly resilient upgrade paths are even achievable.

Part 4 – Future Evolution & Long-Term Implications

The Future of Network Upgrades: Layered Evolution, Modularity, and Cross-Chain Consciousness

The long-term trajectory of blockchain network upgrades is showing an unmistakable trend toward modularity, cross-chain compatibility, and autonomous optimization. As base layers stabilize—especially on proof-of-stake chains—the need for monolithic forks as primary upgrade tools is being steadily displaced by flexible upgrade frameworks that favor runtime reconfiguration and decentralized code evolution.

Next-gen protocols like rollup-centric architectures, app chains, and Layer-2 execution environments will fundamentally fragment the hard fork paradigm. Features like optimistic governance hand-offs, scheduled code activations via time-lock mechanisms, and built-in backward compatibility are becoming foundational expectations, not aspirational upgrades. For instance, modular consensus layers may delegate execution to virtual subnets that can be upgraded independently via on-chain governance, allowing core forks to be reduced to rare protocol-level events.

Still, portability and fork coordination across L1s and L2s create new interdependence hazards. As more app-specific chains and sovereign rollups emerge, the complexity of cross-chain upgrade choreography increases dramatically. Seamless network-wide protocol updates hinge on standardized messaging layers and shared governance coordination. The risks of asynchronous forks—where one chain upgrades and its bridged counterpart does not—are real and could fragment liquidity and trigger trust failures.

This also spotlights the growing importance of cross-chain governance tokens and their role in upgrade ratification. Innovations like multi-DAO federated voting, executable intents, and automated rollback contingency systems will likely mature to address these challenges. Many of these concepts are already surfacing in projects such as PyrFi. The evolution of PyrFi’s multi-layered governance stack makes it a reference point in future-focused upgrade models. For a deeper look, explore PyrFi Revolutionizing Crypto Governance for the Future.

Meanwhile, scalability improvements may reduce the need for contentious forks by enabling smoother transitions through dynamic state migration. Ethereum’s data availability layer (via danksharding) and ZK-proof aggregators aim to support trustless protocol-wide changes without major operational disruptions. Layer-3 ecosystems may eventually orchestrate forks through generalized state machines, where specific logic can be ported or deprecated without revalidating the full chain state—a complete inversion of today’s fork strategy.

Yet, one unresolved tension is anti-fragility: whether an easily upgradeable chain inherently weakens long-term decentralization. When change becomes trivial, what protects the minority’s autonomy? As the line blurs between governance and engineering, this tradeoff—between agility and robustness—will define the philosophical battleground of blockchain’s future.

This leads directly into the critical exploration of governance models, decentralization trajectories, and who actually decides when it’s time to fork—or diverge entirely.

Part 5 – Governance & Decentralization Challenges

Governance in Blockchain: Decentralization or Controlled Chaos?

The tension between decentralization and effective governance is a persistent undercurrent in blockchain evolution. While protocol upgrades like hard and soft forks are often technical on the surface, they are ultimately shaped by off-chain political processes and on-chain voting mechanisms—both of which face major vulnerabilities stemming from governance design.

Permissionless governance intends to eliminate gatekeepers, yet in many blockchains, token-weighted voting mechanisms create a plutocratic structure. Power concentrates silently among whales, venture funds, or founding teams. For instance, foundation-controlled treasuries or delegation systems often centralize governance in practice, even within protocols that advertise full decentralization. This asymmetry can catalyze so-called “governance attacks,” where an entity acquires enough tokens to ram through contentious upgrades, modify treasury allocations, or alter network consensus with essentially no resistance.

At the other extreme, fully decentralized governance faces coordination failures. Without a clear enforcement hierarchy, proposals can stall in endless debate, especially within DAOs lacking a streamlined execution framework. This results in gridlocked upgrades, stalling ecosystem evolution and user adoption.

Regulatory capture is another key risk vector. Public-facing DAOs may offer transparency, but their transparency also invites legal exposure. Legal or governmental pressure on centralized developer groups—even within “decentralized” communities—can force backdoors into the upgrade process. Layer-1 protocols aiming to function as infrastructure often walk a legal tightrope between remaining neutral platforms and acquiring the liabilities of decision-making bodies.

Case studies like PyrFi illustrate the governance dilemmas well. PyrFi’s experimentation with hybrid governance—balancing delegated staking, quadratic voting, and time-locks—has opened a pathway for discussion around mitigating plutocracy while enabling agile decisions. Yet the project has also faced scrutiny over its privileged dev access and transparency shortfalls.

On-chain governance also introduces engineering complexity and latency. Upgrades become subject to the same scrutiny as political referendums, dragging timelines and increasing cohesion risks. Contrasted with more centralized architectures—where a foundation can rapidly ship patches—decentralized networks may lag behind in securing timely consensus for bug fixes or performance enhancements.

Even when decentralization is achieved, the fragmentation of stakeholders creates value capture dilemmas. Who defines "the community"? Who upholds informal norms? Maintaining forward momentum without sacrificing network neutrality requires not just good mechanisms, but resilient political culture too.

Part 6 will analyze how networks must navigate scalability trade-offs that often clash with the ideals of decentralization, especially when seeking performance levels necessary for global adoption.

Part 6 – Scalability & Engineering Trade-Offs

Blockchain Scalability Bottlenecks: Navigating the Trade-Offs between Speed, Security, and Decentralization

Scaling blockchain protocols remains one of the most contentious engineering challenges in Web3 development. As network upgrades—such as hard and soft forks—attempt to address throughput limitations or refine consensus rules, projects are often forced to thread a narrow path through the trilemma: decentralization, security, and scalability.

Layer-1 chains like Ethereum maintain high decentralization and security by design, but their scalability is limited by block times, gas constraints, and the resource ceiling of global node replication. In contrast, Solana’s high-performance model prioritizes speed with its Proof of History (PoH) and tower BFT, but does so while increasing hardware centralization and exposing the network to coordinated downtime risks—something Ethereum’s decentralization guards against.

Bridging these paradigms are hybrid solutions like sharded architectures (e.g., NEAR or Ethereum 2.0) and modular chains (e.g., Celestia). While sharding attempts to parallelize computation across subnetworks, maintaining cross-shard composability is non-trivial. Rollup-centric ecosystems, meanwhile, push execution layers off-chain to Layer-2s, which bring their own trust assumptions, latency trade-offs, and upgrade governance complexities.

The choice of consensus mechanism further compounds trade-offs. Proof-of-Work (PoW) ensures high security through computational cost but scales poorly due to energy intensity and finality delays. Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) style committees offer faster consensus—e.g., Tendermint or HotStuff—but rely on smaller validator sets, which may erode decentralization. Proof-of-Stake (PoS) models attempt to balance this, yet staking centralization (often driven by liquid staking protocols) introduces governance capture concerns.

Engineering solutions are impossible to isolate from social-layer governance. Hard forks that adjust block size, for instance, require community consensus despite technical viability. We saw this play out in Ethereum's DAO fork and Bitcoin’s block size war—a reminder that scalability upgrades rarely occur in technical vacuums.

Frameworks like PyrFi are attempting to abstract over these constraints by creating modular governance and execution models. However, even within Unlocking PyrFi The Future of Crypto Applications, trade-offs between participatory governance and operational throughput remain evident. Consensus upgrades involving token-weighted voting may accelerate changes, but often do so at the expense of minority node operators or independent dev teams.

As scaling pathways diverge—monolithic L1s, modular L2 ecosystems, and cross-chain bridges—the underlying governance mechanisms that oversee these transitions become attack vectors in themselves. Many communities continue to sync performance enhancement with centralized decision-making, oblivious to the gradual erosion of trustless infrastructure.

Part 7 will delve into how these technical governance upgrades intersect with legal liabilities and regulatory enforcement, especially as blockchain networks carry increasing responsibility for enforcing sanctions, KYC, and jurisdictional compliance.

Part 7 – Regulatory & Compliance Risks

Regulatory Compliance Risks in Blockchain Network Upgrades: A Deep Dive into Legal Friction

Network upgrades, whether executed through hard or soft forks, often position themselves within legally gray zones. Blockchain protocols, by design, defy traditional jurisdictional boundaries, which creates immediate friction with regulated financial systems. When a community decides to fork a chain—either to implement new features, remove vulnerabilities, or respond to governance disputes—the ripple effect can trigger friction with securities regulators, tax authorities, and AML enforcement bodies across distinct legal territories.

Compliance risks begin emerging the moment an upgrade redefines how a token behaves or interacts with users. This is particularly relevant when the modified protocol's token acquires functional characteristics that may reclassify it as a security, commodity, or hybrid financial instrument. For instance, a governance token post-fork gaining profit-sharing capabilities or enhanced staking incentives can retroactively fall under securities laws, exposing issuers and centralized facilitators to enforcement actions. Regulatory bodies typically act with lagging clarity, making legal retracement highly uncertain once deployments occur on-chain.

Cross-border implications further compound the complexity. A protocol fork that’s legally sound in Switzerland may simultaneously breach securities regulations in the U.S., or fail to meet Japan’s digital asset custodianship rules. This territorial inconsistency has historically led to projects geo-blocking entire jurisdictions, often excluding large swaths of global users, developers, and investors—not for technical reasons, but for compliance shielding.

Government interventions have already reshaped blockchain trajectories. The 2017 DAO fork split Ethereum, prompting SEC scrutiny into ICO-era governance mechanics. Similarly, regulatory pressure drove some networks to abandon privacy-enhancing features or replace proof-of-work consensus in favor of more energy-efficient models with clearer ESG reporting. Given these precedents, any fork that radically alters governance, tokenomics, or user anonymity layers may invite similar scrutiny or outright bans.

Compounding the challenges are developer liabilities. In highly centralized ecosystems, core developers may be implicated as “controlling agents,” especially if the upgrade roadmap resembles a quasi-corporate release cycle. Without clear legal demarcations, even unpaid contributors risk personal exposure under financial market regulations. This has spurred the emergence of legal firewalls through foundations, DAOs, or proxy governance—concerns that were sharply highlighted when PyrFi’s governance dynamics evolved, as discussed in PyrFi Revolutionizing Crypto Governance for the Future.

Forks that involve reallocation of tokens (e.g., chain splits with airdrops or asset freezes) tread especially risky ground under taxation and reporting regimes. Most global tax authorities maintain unclear or retroactive guidance on such distributions. Participants may unknowingly trigger capital gains events without liquidity, leading to unforeseen fiscal burdens.

Part 8 will continue with an analysis of the economic and financial consequences of network forks and protocol upgrades—covering liquidity shocks, token inflation, ecosystem fragmentation, and long-term asset valuation impacts.

Part 8 – Economic & Financial Implications

The High Stakes of Blockchain Forks: Financial Pressures, Incentives, and Power Realignments

Blockchain network upgrades—particularly hard forks—aren’t merely technical shifts; they’re battlegrounds of economic agency where financial motivations collide with philosophical principles. While the code evolves, markets react, assets reprice, and the distribution of power and capital gets reconfigured across stakeholders.

Institutional investors often emerge as silent powerbrokers in these moments. With multi-million dollar positions at stake, their preference for predictability and continuity typically aligns them with chains that preserve existing consensus. A hard fork that risks splitting liquidity or fragmenting user bases can drastically affect portfolio valuations. For example, when a contentious fork occurs, fund managers must reassess exposure across the diverging chains, perform independent valuations, and manage asymmetric risks—especially if liquidity migrates unevenly.

Developers, on the other hand, become de facto capital allocators. When they drive governance proposals that result in forks, they don’t just shape protocol logic—they affect token velocity, issuance schedules, and in some cases, create arbitrage opportunities via dual-chain assets. These actions can indirectly reward insiders privy to upgrade timelines or soft-launches. This has led to growing tension around opaque governance structures and protocol-level conflicts of interest.

For traders and speculators, forks introduce a kind of controlled volatility. Promotional narratives, social consensus shifts, and token airdrops can create speculative surges. Fork arbitrage—buying tokens pre-fork and splitting them post-fork—continues to be a popular strategy, although not without technical challenges and risks, such as replay attacks or wallet compatibility issues that affect post-fork asset safety.

However, the greatest risk lies in misaligned incentives. Protocol-level changes that benefit one stakeholder often come at the cost of another. For instance, fee structure alterations or changes to staking rewards in a governance upgrade can impact validator revenues while offering marginal benefits to end-users. These shifts can cause validator centralization or churn—threatening network security.

Moreover, forks introduce what some analysts call “protocol debt”: the increasing complexity of governing multi-chain legacies. Chains that split fail to converge again, leading to developer fragmentation, liquidity dilution, and user confusion. This fragmentation can hamper broader DeFi composability, as explored in Unlocking PyrFi: The Future of Crypto Applications.

Long-term, these economic disruptions underscore a critical unresolved tension in blockchain governance: decentralization vs efficiency. How should consensus evolve in ecosystems with multi-billion-dollar TVLs and diverging stakeholder priorities?

As the financial stakes escalate, the question becomes: are we upgrading code, or governing socio-economic consensus mechanisms? This tension sets the stage for a deeper look at the social and philosophical implications shaping blockchain's trajectory in decentralized governance systems.

Part 9 – Social & Philosophical Implications

The Unseen Economic Shifts Triggered by Blockchain Upgrades: Wealth Reallocation, Power Plays, and Risk Exposure

Network upgrades—whether through hard forks or soft forks—aren’t just technical events; they are catalysts for economic dislocations that can produce windfalls or wipeouts across the stakeholder spectrum. These updates change token supply dynamics, influence liquidity structures, and often provoke ideological splits that fragment communities and capital alike.

For institutional investors, hard forks can be especially jarring. A protocol-level split results in a bifurcated asset base—holders suddenly find themselves with two tokens instead of one. While this can be seen as a dividend-like distribution, it also introduces risk: liquidity may consolidate around one version while the other suffers from abandonment. The Ethereum vs. Ethereum Classic fork exemplified how markets can favor the politically dominant chain, leaving dissident investors holding illiquid assets.

On the other end, traders often thrive in the chaos of upgrades. Fork-induced volatility creates asymmetric opportunities through pre-fork accumulation strategies, leveraged yield farming positions, or “airdrop arbitrage.” But smart contract bugs or timeline mismanagement during network transitions can freeze funds or even trigger liquidation cascades if DeFi platforms aren't fortified with compatible upgrades.

Developers, arguably the most strategically positioned, can see their token allocations multiply in value—or become irrelevant—based on how governance unfolds during contentious forks. For projects with ambitious visions of redefining finance, such as PyrFi, upgrades are critical inflection points. Developers aligned with ecosystems like https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/unlocking-pyrfi-the-future-of-crypto-applications understand that network adaptability often trumps ideological purity when the goal is protocol longevity.

Unexpected losers also emerge. Small holders, often less informed and lacking access to non-custodial tools, may miss claiming forked tokens or become victims of scam forks mimicking legitimate upgrades. Exchanges, meanwhile, incur logistical costs managing token redenominations, updating software clients, and navigating regulatory scrutiny surrounding asset classification.

Furthermore, certain staking protocols suffer during forks if consensus mechanisms change—invalidating validator eligibility criteria. Liquidity providers can also be trapped in legacy protocols that hemorrhage users and capital after an upgrade, collapsing APYs and slashing token value.

Finally, speculative capital chases narratives. When a fork is positioned as a "community takeover" or "decentralization correction," it can drive irrational flows into underbaked clones. Whales often exit early, leaving retail participants overexposed.

These economic and financial consequences expose the raw edges of decentralized governance. In the aftermath of forks, it's not uncommon to see reshaped power structures, wealth redistributions, and fractured developer communities. But beyond capital, these disruptions pose deeper questions about trust, control, and identity within decentralized systems—topics which we’ll explore in greater depth next.

Part 10 – Final Conclusions & Future Outlook

The Unseen Forces Behind Blockchain Network Upgrades: Conclusions on Forking, Governance, and Ecosystem Futures

Over the course of this series, we’ve explored the deep technical and social mechanics of hard and soft forks—not as isolated code updates, but as manifestations of underlying fractures or resolutions in blockchain governance. We’ve analyzed how protocol changes often stem not just from developer consensus, but from incentive misalignments, token holder activism, and off-chain influence structures. Understanding the anatomy of a fork has proven inseparable from grasping the governance dynamics—decentralized in theory, but in practice frequently fragmented.

Best-case scenario? Governance frameworks mature into transparent, participatory ecosystems where forks represent progress rather than crisis. Optimistic trajectories see improvements in on-chain voting mechanisms, quadratic funding systems, and delegation models that align developers, validators, and end users. Projects like PyrFi: Revolutionizing Crypto Governance for the Future hint at this potential by proposing modular governance layers over DeFi protocols, although the execution remains uneven across the sector.

Worst-case? Network upgrades become battlegrounds for reputation attacks, exit scams, and regulatory arbitrage. Technical disputes could veil power struggles, where a minority seeks control under the guise of “community interest.” In such cases, forks would mirror political coups more than consensus-driven upgrades, pushing mainstream adoption further away.

Several open problems remain. Is there a universally scalable way to balance speed of upgrades with democratic mandates? Can DAOs move beyond plutocracy when token concentration remains high? And what about social consensus—as subjective as it is powerful?

For blockchain to become genuinely mainstream, users must not only understand governance—they must trust it. That means bridging the UX gaps in voting, governance participation, and communications. Dismantling the intimidation layer is as important as solving technical debt. Formal verification, governance simulations, and stress-tested upgrade paths will be critical for ensuring resilience at scale.

Still, a paradox lingers: decentralization promises inclusivity, yet often results in opacity. Forks illuminate this contradiction. They are both symptoms and mechanisms for change. Whether they lead to constructive rebirths or irreversible fractures depends not just on code but coordination.

So the ultimate question remains: Will the act of forking define the success of decentralized networks—or fracture them beyond repair, relegating blockchain to yet another techno-utopian footnote in history?

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com