#以太坊生态发展 Vitalik's discussion on the balance of power points to a core issue: economies of scale have continued to strengthen in the 21st century, but the two forces historically used to counterbalance—diseconomies of scale and diffusion effects—are failing. Technological advances, automation, and the proliferation of proprietary technologies are making the growth curves of the powerful increasingly steep.

From an on-chain data perspective, this phenomenon is quite interesting. The example of Lido accounting for 24% of the Ethereum staking ecosystem vividly illustrates the issue—controlling nearly a quarter of the validation rights with a single node was unimaginable in the PoW era. However, Lido's decentralized DAO structure and dual governance design demonstrate a different possibility compared to the centralized power models of traditional finance centers.

The key insight is that relying solely on decentralization narratives is not enough. Design must address two dimensions simultaneously: one is the business model, and the other is the decentralization model. The former solves survival issues, while the latter prevents becoming a power node. Strategies like adversarial interoperability, forced technological diffusion, and Copyleft licensing essentially create a "third way"—one that seeks to reap the benefits of economies of scale while breaking down the moats created by monopolies.

The future competitiveness of the Ethereum ecosystem may not depend on how large individual projects can grow, but on whether the entire ecosystem can continuously reduce the likelihood of power centralization. This means more cross-layer interoperability, more independent nodes, and more decentralized participation methods. Data shows that if a single staking pool or exchange's share continues to surpass a certain threshold, the risk is no longer just a technical issue but a governance resilience issue for the entire ecosystem.