Decentralization and Governance in Blockchain; Mutually Exclusive or Coexistent?

Decentralization and governance can be at odds. Werbach posits that a blockchain will fail if there is no governance, for instance, to resolve disputes, while, on the other hand, the existence of any (in)formal governance structure means there is no longer decentralization: a paradox. This paper discusses that paradox by reviewing empirical input from day- to-day practitioners (blockchain experts) who draw on their practical experience. The findings presented in this paper show an overwhelming rejection of the paradox. This suggests that governance and decentralization coexist. Experts believe that governance provides procedural legitimacy and guidelines rather than centralized control. Governance does not provide decisions; it provides boundaries and guidelines, and sets the procedure of how decisions are being made. In addition, governance is seen as an important mechanism, as it is required to adapt to changes, manage disputes, and ensure legitimacy without compromising decentralization. A key objection to the paradox is that it is a generalization that omits the principle of compromise and the assumption that governance implies control. The study concludes that the paradox is inaccurate and points to the importance of community participation and critical reflection to avoid complacency. However, nuance is needed. Simply rejecting or ignoring the paradox can seriously jeopardize decentralization, while accepting the paradox would imply that there cannot be blockchain governance. The panel of blockchain experts was asked about the need for governance and the relationship between technology and governance. This gave a more philosophical insight into blockchain governance and contributes to an even deeper understanding of governance and decentralization and how they interact.