👾The Duty of Builders

We who design protocols are stewards, not gatekeepers. Our duty is not to build what is easiest, but what remains open and self-sovereign.

When complexity tempts us to centralize, we must remember: every line of convenience code can become a choke point. When critics ask why our designs are complicated, we should ask them what — or whom — they are trusting instead. If simplicity comes from trust, it is not simplicity. It is surrender.

Trustlessness costs computation, latency, and mental effort. It buys resilience, longevity, neutrality, and freedom.

Trustlessness also requires viable incentives. Systems must reward those who sustain them without turning them into gatekeepers. A protocol that relies on unpaid altruism will decay. A protocol that rewards control will centralize. The only stable equilibrium is one where neutrality is profitable.

---

We choose to build trustless systems even when it is harder. We pay the cost of openness over the convenience of control. We do not outsource neutrality to anyone who can be bribed, coerced, or shut down. We measure success not by transactions per second, but by trust reduced per transaction.

We refuse to build on infrastructure we cannot replace. We refuse to call a system "permissionless" when only the privileged can participate. We refuse to trade autonomy for polish, or freedom for frictionless UX. Trustlessness is not preserved by consensus alone - it is preserved by resistance.

If your protocol requires faith in an intermediary, change it. If it relies on a private gateway, replace it. If it hides critical state or logic off-chain, expose it.

In the end, the world does not need more efficient middlemen. It needs fewer reasons to trust them.