Ethereum is retracing the paths of the internet and Linux: everyone refuses to yield to anyone else, and ultimately, neutrality wins.
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Ethereum is retracing the paths of the internet and Linux: everyone refuses to yield to anyone else, and ultimately, neutrality wins.
When everyone refuses to yield to a company’s infrastructure, the only option is a neutral layer controlled by no one.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Etherealize
Compiled by: TechFlow
TechFlow Intro: Stripe wants everyone to use Tempo; JPMorgan wants to push its own chain; Circle wants to promote Arc—giants will never build on competitors’ turf. This is Ethereum’s opportunity: when everyone refuses to submit to a single company’s infrastructure, the only viable option is a neutral layer no one controls.
Ethereum is replaying the histories of the internet and Linux.
"Stripe wants everything to happen on Tempo; JPMorgan wants everything on the JPMorgan Chain; Circle wants everything on Arc—and so on. They’ll never agree. Major players will never consent to building on another major player’s infrastructure. That’s why Ethereum is the only option. It’s the sole path forward—as a neutral infrastructure acceptable to all."
In 1995, most tech elites were convinced the internet would lose out to proprietary enterprise networks. They were wrong—and today’s critics of Ethereum are likely to err for similar reasons. The most famous example is Bill Gates, who predicted in The Road Ahead that the future of digital commerce would run not on the open internet but on proprietary networks owned by companies like Microsoft and Oracle. This was consensus at the time. As a16z co-founder Ben Horowitz wrote: “Almost nobody thought the internet would have significant impact outside scientific circles—the least optimistic were precisely those busy building proprietary alternatives, the most important technology industry leaders.” Linux faced the same skepticism. Throughout the late 1990s, Sun Microsystems dominated the high-end Unix server market—but by the early 2000s, it had lost most of its business to open-source Linux running on cheap, commodity hardware.
The same pattern is playing out today in financial infrastructure. Enterprises perceive both opportunity and threat, racing to build proprietary blockchains within their own walled gardens. For a time, proprietary versions appear to win—they’re faster, offer better UX, and deploy large business development teams. Then they’re gradually consumed by an open, trustlessly neutral alternative, because no company can keep pace with permissionless innovation indefinitely—and no serious participant will build atop infrastructure controlled by a competitor.
In his 1997 essay “The Cathedral and the Bazaar,” Linux contributor Eric Raymond sought to explain why open, permissionless infrastructure often wins in the long run. Since Fred Brooks’ The Mythical Man-Month, conventional wisdom held that software must be built by small, tightly managed teams under a single architect, as communication costs scale quadratically. Yet Raymond observed thousands of contributors—most of whom had never met—simultaneously working on different parts of the Linux kernel, outperforming billion-dollar corporations. If traditional software resembled a carefully crafted “cathedral,” then “bazaar” was Raymond’s term for Linus Torvalds’ accidental discovery of a chaotic, public, distributed development model—he released the kernel source code freely and accepted patches from anyone willing to submit them. Its guiding principle, in Raymond’s words, was “release early, release often, delegate everything you can, and open up to the point of promiscuity”—a philosophy that produced an operating system running most of the web by the early 2000s.
Raymond’s explanation was that the bazaar avoids quadratic communication costs because contributors don’t coordinate directly with each other. Instead, they coordinate via patches and releases; maintainers integrate their work into a shared medium upon which everyone else coordinates. As he put it, “Brooks’ Law hasn’t been repealed—but its effects can be swamped by other nonlinear factors when you have large numbers of developers and cheap communication.”
Another mechanism Raymond identified was the bazaar’s elimination of the distinction between users and developers. In the cathedral, users are customers reporting bugs at a help desk. In the bazaar, users are co-developers reporting bugs by fixing them—or describing them with enough technical detail for others to fix. Raymond explained that in open-source communities, “every problem is transparent to someone.” Collective collaboration surpasses any centralized competitor:
"The Linux world behaves in many respects like a free market or an ecosystem—a collection of self-interested agents trying to maximize utility, a process that produces a self-correcting spontaneous order far more fine-grained and efficient than any centrally planned system."
You see this on Ethereum. Fabian Vogelsteller authored the ERC-20 standard—now used by every stablecoin—because while building a wallet, he discovered there was no clean way to support tokens, as each token had its own interface. The NFT standard ERC-721 came from the team behind CryptoKitties. Uniswap, now the world’s largest decentralized exchange, originated from a blog post by Vitalik Buterin and was built by mechanical engineer Hayden Adams—who had no finance background. None of them needed permission to improve the network. As Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy said, “No matter who you are, most of the smartest people work for someone else”—and in permissionless systems, innovation can come from anywhere.
The difference between bazaar and cathedral lies in the integration layer: thin, public, and authority-free—built on credibility, not command. Coordinators like Linus Torvalds or Vitalik Buterin lead not because they hold formal power, but because contributors choose to follow—and contributors follow because coordinators’ decisions are inspectable, criticizable, and forkable if necessary. The internet has a thin centralized integration layer in the form of IETF and IANA. Wikipedia has its editorial process. Every project that sustains a long-term advantage from permissionless innovation combines genuinely open contribution with structured integration—preventing the chaos critics fear. And crucially, the integration layer must operate through credibility, not coercion—or it fails.
The bazaar also requires a foundation no one can capture. If Torvalds tried to privatize the kernel, contributors would fork the project and continue elsewhere. Raymond expanded this idea in “Homesteading the Noosphere,” arguing that open source has evolved property rights analogous to John Locke’s theory of land ownership: developers establish ownership by pioneering a project (writing initial code), maintain it through sustained contribution, and may transfer it via legitimate inheritance. Open licenses provide formal credibility; norms of the “internet wilderness” serve as social mechanisms. Remove either, and contributors migrate elsewhere—where their contributions won’t be appropriated.
Within the Ethereum community, Vitalik Buterin formalized this requirement as “credible neutrality.” A coordination mechanism is credibly neutral when its rules are transparent, equally applicable to all participants, difficult to change, and open to anyone willing to abide by them. These four attributes are drawn from systems proven to attract large-scale contributions. The internet, Linux, and Wikipedia all embody variants of these properties. Proprietary networks, walled gardens, and enterprise blockchains do not.
Over sufficient time, credibly neutral systems typically win. Open networks displaced proprietary ones; Linux replaced proprietary Unix; Wikipedia supplanted Encarta and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Each time, proprietary alternatives held real advantages—focused products, greater capital, customer support teams, professional marketing and business development—but each time, those advantages eroded as the open ecosystem matured and network effects reversed. Once the open alternative crosses the threshold in accumulated contributions, tooling, and credible immutability of rules, closed systems stand almost no chance of competing.
The same pattern is now unfolding across every layer of financial infrastructure. SWIFT, Visa, Mastercard—and consortium chains being pitched to institutions today—are distinct products with different histories, yet structurally identical bets: centrally controlled infrastructure with a potential landlord. For forty years, SWIFT functioned as a neutral pipe owned by its member banks—until 2012, when U.S. pressure forced it to cut off Iranian banks, and again in 2022, when it severed several Russian banks. Despite corporate governance and Belgian registration, SWIFT ultimately answered to the United States—and the rest of the world took note. China accelerated CIPS; Russia built SPFS; India expanded UPI; Brazil’s Pix became the backbone of BRICS Pay. Visa and Mastercard began as bank cooperatives but later transformed into tollbooths charging merchants 1.5–3.5% per transaction. Consortium chains being marketed today—like Canton, Tempo, and Arc—carry the same flaw: a landlord whose interests may diverge from those building atop it.
“The original vision of consortium blockchains—five banks or large corporations getting together to create their own chain—has essentially failed,” Vitalik Buterin explained. “It ends up inheriting most of the disadvantages of centralization *and* most of the disadvantages of decentralization.” As he described it, the problem is that the first few banks feel like equal founders—but the twentieth bank merely joins something already controlled by competitors. You bear all the engineering costs of a distributed system without reaping the benefits of openness, composability, and credible neutrality—the very reasons blockchain was worth pursuing in the first place.
The wreckage confirms his claim. Between 2017 and 2019, several major banking consortia attempted to rebuild trade finance on blockchain. We.trade—backed by over a dozen banks including HSBC and Deutsche Bank—went bankrupt in 2022. Marco Polo signed up over thirty banks but collapsed and liquidated a year later. Contour shut down months after. The Australian Securities Exchange spent six years and roughly AUD $250 million building a permissioned ledger with Digital Asset (now behind Canton)—only to abandon the project in 2022. Meanwhile, the unowned Ethereum network has never gone offline in its decade-plus history—only grown.
This is why developers choose Ethereum. According to Electric Capital, over one million developers have contributed to the Ethereum ecosystem over its lifetime, with approximately 232,000 active developers in the past year alone—no other chain comes close. Partly this reflects a classic flywheel effect: tools, standards, and job opportunities concentrate on Ethereum, so people learn to build there—which in turn attracts more tools and jobs. But developers and institutions also choose Ethereum specifically for its superior decentralization and credible neutrality. For example, last year Robinhood chose to build its L2 on Ethereum rather than its own L1; Johann Kerbrat, head of the firm’s crypto business, explained why:
"You see many companies building their own L1s right now. We’re excited about the idea of controlling everything you want to build—but creating real, proper, decentralized-chain security is extremely hard, and Ethereum basically gives you that for free. When you look at some of the new L1s being created, they’re not truly decentralized, nor truly secure. Ultimately, they’re basically just fancy databases—slightly slower than actual databases—so we really don’t see the value there."
Erik Voorhees, founder of Venice AI—a privacy-first AI inference platform serving over three million users and generating tens of millions in ARR—articulated a similar rationale just days ago. When asked why Venice was built on Coinbase’s Ethereum L2 Base, Erik replied: “It wasn’t even a question for us. The Ethereum ecosystem is the most authentic, resilient, and robust smart-contract platform ecosystem.”
The most critical blockchain attribute is sovereignty. Bitcoin’s revolutionary nature lies in being the world’s first sovereign computing platform. Before Bitcoin, all computing platforms belonged to individuals, corporations, or governments—and thus had to obey their owners’ will and jurisdictional rules. Sovereignty, however, obeys only its own rules: no single entity can impose rules on Bitcoin. Kings and queens once embodied sovereignty; then nation-states did; now, for the first time, computing platforms can become sovereign. That’s why decentralization is so prized in crypto—it’s the means to achieve sovereignty. A platform with ten validators obeys the rules of those ten. But a platform like Ethereum—with hundreds of thousands of independent validators distributed across every major jurisdiction, multiple independent client implementations, and a foundation explicitly renouncing governance authority—has crossed a threshold where no party can credibly claim ownership. Sovereignty is what enables global financial systems to be built on Ethereum without any participant fearing that another participant, government, or foundation will change rules to their detriment.
Ethereum’s leadership in sovereignty and credible neutrality stems largely from path dependencies other blockchains cannot replicate. Ethereum launched in 2015 with Proof-of-Work (PoW), ran for seven years, and transitioned to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) in 2022. During that period, network ownership was distributed via the 2014 public crowd sale and deliberately accessible GPU mining—designed to remain feasible on consumer-grade hardware. The result was broad token distribution, with no single entity holding a meaningful share of network control—a key factor in PoS network sovereignty. Modern consortium chains launch via venture capital funding, with concentrated insider allocations—giving a handful of participants outsized influence over chain consensus. Competitors can copy architecture—but not history.
Since then, Ethereum’s lead has only widened. Its sovereignty and credible neutrality attract developers. Developers attract more developers, because libraries, tooling, and hiring pools already exist on Ethereum—making development easier there than anywhere else. Applications attract liquidity and tokenized assets, which in turn attract institutions. Each layer reinforces the others—and entrants must build all layers simultaneously, while Ethereum compounds growth continuously.
The field’s most mature participants have already chosen Ethereum. Coinbase and Robinhood selected Ethereum for their L2s. BlackRock and JPMorgan launched their tokenized money market funds—BUIDL and MONY—on Ethereum. Major DeFi protocols—including Aave, Maker/Sky, Maple, and Uniswap—operate primarily on Ethereum. The largest stablecoin issuers settle on Ethereum. According to Token Terminal’s Q1 2026 Ethereum Report, Ethereum holds 79% of active DeFi loans, 62% of stablecoins, 73% of tokenized funds, and 84% of tokenized commodities among the top five chains.
Applications themselves are permissionless—further reinforcing Ethereum’s advantage. For instance, Uniswap’s permissionless listing process enables thousands of long-tail assets to discover pricing and liquidity unavailable on any centralized exchange. Aave’s lending markets are open and composable—spawning an entire ecosystem of specialized vaults and risk managers built atop its liquidity, extending Aave’s reach far beyond what its core team could build alone. Closed systems require gatekeepers to anticipate every use case in advance—but open systems need no such foresight.
The strongest objection to “permissionless wins” isn’t technical—it’s financial: perhaps finance is the one domain where enterprise-owned networks are features, not flaws. When payments fail or assets end up where they shouldn’t, regulators demand accountability. When lawyers arrive, “no one is responsible” sounds less like an advantage—and more like liability. But this objection conflates two things operating at different layers: accountability resides at the application layer, not the settlement layer. For example, token standards like ERC-3643 embed KYC, identity verification, and jurisdictional transfer restrictions directly into a token’s smart contract—enabling issuers to whitelist wallets, restrict transfers, and freeze or reclaim assets. Privacy works similarly: zero-knowledge cryptography lets institutions settle on public blockchains while keeping transaction details confidential. On consortium chains, the only parties who see your data are you—and your closest competitor.
Early on, the internet was deemed too insecure for real commerce. Then HTTPS made the open network secure enough that virtually all commerce migrated there—and the issue ceased to be discussed. Skeptics weren’t wrong about the internet’s early state. They simply misjudged its capacity to close the gap.
The notion held by banks and fintech firms building their own chains today mirrors AOL’s and Microsoft’s thinking during the internet’s infancy: build something open—but inside your own walled garden, so you can collect rent. But this never works, because the wall granting you control is the same wall blocking innovation.
A better model is Netscape. Netscape didn’t try to own the internet; it built the browser that brought the world online. Riding the explosive growth of the open internet, it briefly became one of the era’s most important companies. Ethereum’s credible neutrality is nearly impossible to replicate—and it’s already positioned to become global finance’s settlement layer. The winning strategy is to build *on* permissionless infrastructure—not against it.
Disclosure: This analysis was published by Etherealize, an organization focused on institutional Ethereum adoption. The author and Etherealize may hold positions in ETH and other digital assets discussed herein. This is not investment advice.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@Etherealize_io
