The accountability paradox of DePIN

Decentralization is often ideal for encryption, but its real effect depends on the quality of the scales and the solution of real world problems. It comes to empowering people, not just creating something that looks good on paper. in Physical decentralization InfRAstricture networks, decentralized, encourages global participation and equal real contributions. But the question remains, who takes responsibility when something is broken, when there is not one responsible entity?

While decentralization promises financial freedom, today cryptocurrency markets are still stable or decentralized. In the midst of the “Bull Run” currency, the S&P 500 and NASDAQ recorded it worst Seavin performance since the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020-a fluctuation that extends to encryption with increasingly tangled financial and governmental institutions.

The confidence crisis in Fiat is the opportunity to encrypt

This unstable market reminds me of Satoshi Nakamoto to caution About years ago, in Bitcoin (BTC) White paper:

“The root problem in the traditional currency is all the confidence required to make it work. The Central Bank must be trusted not to form the currency, but the history of the Fiat is full of the violations of that confidence“

Since then we have taken the basic principle of decentralization and have applied it beyond that-both self-identifiers, Defi, Daos, DePin, and Desci. But although we rushed to add “De-” to every industry, we have not always added the same rigor to the questions of responsibility, reliability and reform. Less luster but essential parts of already operating building systems.

The encryption can remove the need for confidence, but can he deal with responsibility

Empowering decentralization, but also raises an important question: in a world without a central authority, who is responsible? When there is not a single entity in control, keeping individuals or responsible groups becomes much more difficult.

If monetary policies become high, there will be a clear central entity responsible for addressing the situation. How do we guarantee the same accountability when the Blockchain knot goes or the network decisions should be taken quickly?

Dow incident of 2016 This challenge is represented. DAO was one of the first major projects that focus on decentralized autonomy and built on ETAREUM, raising $ 150 million to work as an investment capital fund without central control.

However, the security vulnerability was exploited in its smart contract, which led to the penetration of the depletion of about a third of its money. Since Dao was an amalgamic, there was no clear authority to intervene and fix the problem quickly. ETHEREUM community had to discuss for weeks on whether to intervene, which ultimately leads to a controversial difficult thorn creature ethereum (Eth) And ethereum classic (etc.).

This condition highlights the decentralized accountability dilemma, especially in times of crisis. When there is no central authority, teamwork becomes slower and more complicated, and therefore must be associated with accountability mechanisms.

Null Island and GPS dilemma

DePin and AI systems are struggling more than others with accountability. Data oceans are fed, and ongoing incentives is to collect more data – not to ensure their authenticity.

In many DePin projects, the race to the range often puts the amount of data before quality. Since the incentives usually depend on the amount of data that is contributing, there is little accountability about whether these data is useful or trusted already. Over time, some networks end up with a signal reward.

For example, some DePin projects contain dozens of nodes off the West Africa coast, the latitude and lines 0 ° N 0 °; An empty ocean was formulatedEmpty islandSince its spread, it has occurred when the site data errors arise in geography, instead of replacing the coordinates with “Null, Null”.

Even when using GPS data accurately, it contains large weaknesses that are often exploited, such as intimidating the site and GPS drifting. Even there is complete Subreddit When Pokémon Go is invented for the best Pikachu without a walking effort.

• The site is deception– Discriminating GPS data in wrong site data.
• GPS driftWhen the location of the device is far from the actual position of the device. A movement can also be displayed even when the device is in complete stopping. It can be the cause of factors such as signal overlap, satellite mode, or even weather conditions.

This is not just a virtual issue-site data, with severe consequences in the world.

More value flows to the site’s data, from the real asset tracking to the operation of smart cities. With more physical assets connecting, the safety of this data begins more. What if it is frightened? Think about drones that offer packages, or vehicles that transport dense urban networks. What happens when this data is wrong, delayed or processing? The cost is not always disastrous, but it adds up to time, wrong commodities, inefficiency, and more.

These are the risks when not verifying data.

The need to verify data in decentralized networks

Decentralized networks should do more than just eliminating confidence in central entities; It should be replaced by high -quality verified data. This is exactly where the site is entered, adding an essential layer of verification in actual time. Not only is the data created, but also validated, ensuring that it reflects the actual conditions instead of the processed inputs.

In order for DePins to be reliable, accounting must be built into the system. If a service fails, the network should not collapse – it must adapt. This is where repetition plays an important role. The smaller Depin networks often struggle with a limited contract with this, but the projects created have a different approach. With millions of nodes in more than 150 countries and mechanisms for reducing the tested battle, we guarantee the safety and continuity of spatial geographical data even when the individual contract fails.

Bad data is an existential threat to data. Without checking, networks become vulnerable to sabotage, fraud and failure. The future of decentralization is not only dependent on the removal of the central authority, but also that the data we rely on is constantly accurate.