Decentralization is the new fad . We need to remind ourselves why centralisation was good in the past. Centralisation was required in the past for efficient communication and information organisation. ‘Bad’ Data Problem Information has a tendency to spread like bacteria. But there is ‘good’ bacteria; then there is ‘bad’ bacteria. Centralised ‘control’ is ultimately about avoiding and restraining chaos. Centralised societies and systems, therefore, have vastly reduced levels of confusion, chaos and waste. A centralised system requires ‘good’ information in order to make its decisions. Because of this, centralised systems have extremely good ‘detection’ systems for ‘bad’ data. The of data contained within a centralised system, is critical to the system’s viability and existence. fidelity As a result, centralised systems are also data systems. all reliable ‘Information’ Dynamics To call centralised systems ‘reliable’ data systems is NOT the same thing as to claim that they have ‘more’ data than decentralised ones. In fact, centralised systems are poor at information . They tend to on (originally generated from sources) for information. extremely generation over-rely past data decentralised It is this that makes centralised systems extremely vulnerable to black swans; e.g. a change in central ‘rule’, a new ‘bacteria’ not previously factored in, a new product that changes how business is done, a deadly attack centralised system, etc. over-reliance on past data from another The dynamic of centralised systems then, is that of ‘waiting’ for centralised ‘command and control’. information The dynamic of decentralised systems has no ‘waiting period’, it is instant, continuous, ubiquitous and multi-dimensional. information Assessing System Risks It is incumbent upon every system engineer to know the risks behind centralised ‘rule’ and decentralized systems. both In the past, centralised rule systems seem to have much better than decentralised ones due to the fact that ‘information’ was to come by. Viewed another way, decentralised systems no real benefit _while c_arrying enormous risks of chaos and ‘ ! fared primarily hard offered bad’ information overload In the present, there is a predilection for decentralization. This is, partly, for reasons. Centralised systems carry the heavy risk of , being-disrupted, lacking-adaptability, and over-relying on history as opposed to the present and the future. reigning good stagnancy Systems Are About Information, Not ‘Control’ or Lack Thereof There is a way to judge ANY system, centralized or decentralized, on whether it is GOOD or not. This way, involves looking at the design process from the perspective of the system has 1) an generation, and 2) a system. new whether information ‘reliability’ detection A system that 1) is fragile and emergent properties of growth, adaptation and . lacks intelligence A systems that 2) is for complex processes. ineffective completing RETHINK Decentralization systems are not about ‘control’ or lack thereof. There is absolutely NO NEED to think of ‘decentralization’ as a paradigm to solving problems we have in the present. Since But we can ADAPT the concepts of decentralization in terms of how they apply to (see above section). information dynamics Having done that, we could then ask if our system has checks and balances for the of as and when required. Most ‘decentralization’ advocates like Nassim Taleb and Bitcoin/blockchain enthusiasts seem to miss this (extremely critical) point! new built-in execution complex processes There is an increasingly about decentralization that continues to fail to account for the of cohesion, and fidelity. exhausting excitement needs architectural RETHINK Information!!! Information is . It is, , not even about data ‘newness’! There is obviously, . (Perhaps the main cause behind ‘fake news’/ ?). NOT about quantities sadly a tendency, for ‘data (generation) intensive’ systems to have a predilection for ‘new’ data over ‘old’ data click-bait Information is really about ‘actionability’. Centralised systems this very well. Unfortunately, cetralised systems make the mistake of (inadvertently) then ‘limiting’ by consciously limiting the of information. know action amount System Design IS Information Architecture Many software engineers are usually taught that some form of ‘information artechitecture/design’ is required to design a complex piece of software. It is my contention in this essay that ANY system (physical, social/political or virtual) in fact an information architecture. existing is This implies that the ‘design process’ that is followed is MORE DETERMINANT to the final system ‘architecture’ than the ‘system architecture’ that an engineer drew at the beginning stages of the project. Another implication of this hypothesis is that it is NOT ONLY software engineers who actually DO ‘information architecture’. Every engineer is essentially responsible for achieving the same goal: making a system that is and somehow ‘generative’ of new insights. useful The obsession with BOTH AI and blockchain seems to prioritise ‘data’ over usefulness; ‘decentralization’ over centralisation; more ‘data’ over (actionable) data. present less But, we need BOTH! The TRUE Future ! The future lies in understanding this new ‘information’ paradigm. We need useful systems; we need information systems. truly also TO get decentralization is the WRONG paradigm for that to be realised. both, TO get , we need ‘more’ INFORMATION systems. (not necessarily ‘more data’). Thankfully, the Internet, blockchain, computing devices like cellphones, transportation systems (e.g. hyperloop, etc), social media and the proliferation of sensor devices, networks and technologies are of in this regard. both improved great help TO get we would need to several ‘check and balance’ that allow us to make our decisions and effectively. both, build systems own time-ously
