Decentralization: The Foundation of Enduring Governance
On March 4, 1789, the government of the United States officially commenced under the newly ratified Constitution, marking the first true implementation of a compound republic—a system designed not for consolidation of power, but for its structured distribution of power.
This moment was not only the birth of a novel governance system; it was the realization of an idea: that liberty is best preserved when power is intentionally diffused, ensuring that no single authority, political faction, or transient majority can dominate the whole.
The endurance of this system is not due to the virtue of individual leaders, but rather to the structural safeguards embedded within the Constitution—checks and balances, federalism, and immutable constraints that remain beyond the reach of simple majoritarian rule.
These same principles, which have secured self-governance in America for 236 years, find a modern parallel in decentralized blockchain networks. Whether in Proof-of-Work (PoW) or Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanisms, these systems are designed to resist arbitrary control, coercive rule changes, and manipulation by economic or political elites.
As we reflect on the legacy of March 4, 1789, it is worth considering how the principles that secured political and individual sovereignty are now being applied to monetary and digital sovereignty in blockchain governance.
Decentralization in Constitutional and Blockchain Governance
The distribution of power within a system—whether in government or technology—determines its stability, resilience, and resistance to centralization. Both constitutional governance and blockchain networks function by ensuring that no single entity or majority faction can unilaterally alter fundamental rules.
This treatise examines key similarities between these two systems, focusing on how decentralization is preserved through immutable rules, layered governance, checks on coercion, and economic incentives that align system participants toward long-term stability.
Constraints on Power: The Bill of Rights and Supply Limits in PoW and PoS
What is commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, better titled a Bill of Constraints, serves as enumerated restrictions on government power, preventing any governing authority from infringing on essential freedoms, regardless of popular support or political expediency. These constraints exist precisely because majorities cannot always be trusted to uphold liberty when given unchecked power.
Similarly, in blockchain networks, foundational constraints such as monetary supply limits serve as safeguards against economic manipulation.
In Bitcoin (PoW), the 21 million BTC cap ensures scarcity, preventing inflationary policies similar to those seen in fiat currency systems.
In Ethereum (PoS), the staking reward mechanism is designed to balance security incentives while avoiding uncontrolled token issuance.
Other PoS networks, such as Cardano and Polkadot, use mechanisms to dynamically adjust issuance based on governance decisions but within predefined parameters.
Just as the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed through ordinary legislation, these supply limits cannot be changed unless a supermajority of network participants agree to fork or migrate to an alternative chain. The effectiveness of both systems lies not just in the code or text but in the social consensus that enforces these principles.
Federalism and Layered Governance: The U.S. Compound Republic and Layered Blockchain Systems
The U.S. Constitution establishes a compound republic, in which power is divided between the federal government and each state government. This structure ensures that no single governing body can dictate all aspects of life, maintaining a balance between national coordination and local autonomy.
A similar layered structure is seen in blockchain networks:
Layer 1 (L1): The base layer, providing security and fundamental consensus rules. Examples include Bitcoin (PoW) and Ethereum (PoS).
Layer 2 (L2): Solutions built on top of L1, allowing faster transactions, scalability, and governance flexibility while still relying on L1 security. Examples include Lightning Network (Bitcoin) and rollups like Arbitrum or Optimism (Ethereum).
Just as the federal government provides overarching national security and legal structure while allowing states to operate semi-independently, L1 secures the core blockchain while L2 solutions enable innovation without modifying base-layer principles.
State Nullification and Hard Forks
Throughout U.S. history, states have resisted federal laws they deemed unconstitutional. While controversial, nullification demonstrates that in a decentralized system, resistance to imposed rule is possible.
Similarly, in blockchain governance, when fundamental disagreements arise, a portion of the community may choose to hard fork, creating a new chain that diverges from the original.
Ethereum Classic (ETC) forked from Ethereum (ETH) after the DAO hack.
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) forked from Bitcoin (BTC) over a dispute on block size.
Polkadot (PoS) allows parachains to fork away from the relay chain if governance disputes arise.
In both cases, the decentralized structure ensures that those who disagree are not forced into compliance.
The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine and Validator Sovereignty
The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine in U.S. constitutional law prevents the federal government from forcing state governments to implement federal policies against their will. This ensures that states retain autonomy and can reject policies they deem unconstitutional. Here are 2 relevant Supreme Court precedents:
New York v. United States (1992) - “The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”
Printz v. United States (1997) - “Congress cannot circumvent [federalism] by conscripting state governments directly.”
In blockchain networks, validators and miners serve a similar role, as they have the power to reject protocol changes they do not agree with. If developers propose an upgrade that alters the consensus rules:
PoW miners can refuse to mine blocks that follow the new rules, effectively nullifying the proposed fork.
PoS validators can decline to accept governance proposals that modify network incentives or security parameters.
The key principle remains the same: no central entity can coerce decentralized actors into compliance. This doctrine prevents the federal government from forcing state governments into compliance, just as Bitcoin miners and PoS validators cannot be forced to adopt protocol changes.
The Supremacy Clause and Protocol-Level Consensus
The Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution ensures that federal law takes precedence over state law, but only when enacted within constitutional limits.
Similarly, protocol-level consensus rules dictate the hierarchy of authority in blockchain governance:
L1 protocol rules (like Bitcoin’s 21M cap or Ethereum’s PoS structure) are enforced across all participants.
Governance changes must adhere to these core principles—otherwise, they are rejected by the network.
Just as courts can strike down unconstitutional laws, nodes and validators can reject invalid blocks and protocol changes.
The Electoral College and Proof-of-Stake (PoS) Governance: Apportionment as a Safeguard Against Centralization
The Electoral College was designed to prevent direct democracy from overwhelming smaller states, ensuring that regional interests are balanced against national majorities. By structuring presidential elections through apportioned electors, the system prevents populous states from unilaterally dictating national outcomes, preserving representation for diverse regions.
A similar principle exists in Proof-of-Stake (PoS) governance, where decision-making power is not purely stake-weighted, but is instead structured to balance security, decentralization, and fair representation.
Apportionment Mechanisms: Some PoS networks incorporate quadratic vote weighting to prevent stake-weighted plutocracy, ensuring that governance influence is distributed rather than concentrated among the wealthiest holders.
Time-Weighted Influence with Decay: Similar to how long-standing political institutions stabilize governance, some PoS models factor in time-weighted provable value with influence decay, ensuring that voting power aligns with long-term commitment rather than short-term opportunism.
Both systems recognize that pure stake-based or purely majoritarian governance can lead to centralization of power, whether by large token holders or dominant states. By structuring governance through apportionment and influence-balancing mechanisms, both the Electoral College and PoS ensure broad participation without enabling absolute control by any single faction.
Representative Government and Proof-of-Stake (PoS) Governance: Delegation, Constitutional Enforcement, and Optimistic Execution
In the U.S. Constitution, citizens elect representatives to Congress who act as intermediaries, ensuring that laws reflect the interests of their constituents while remaining within constitutional bounds. This delegated authority prevents direct majoritarian rule while entrusting governance to those with a stake in the system’s long-term stability.
Similarly, in PoS governance, stakeholders delegate stake to validators, who serve as constitutional enforcers—ensuring that proposals do not violate protocol rules. This delegation model aligns incentives, as validators are economically bonded to uphold the system’s integrity, much like elected officials are bound by oath to the Constitution.
Using an L2 with optimistic rollups, we can imagine both systems operating on an optimistic execution model, where decisions take effect immediately, but remain subject to a perpetual challenge window in which unconstitutional actions—whether a law, governance proposal or invalid transactions—can be contested and overturned by courts or on-chain governance mechanisms. This ensures that invalid actions do not persist simply due to procedural momentum, maintaining rule-of-law governance in both political and blockchain systems.
Structural Decentralization is the Key to Enduring Governance
The endurance of both constitutional and blockchain systems rests on decentralization. The U.S. Constitution, Bitcoin (PoW), Ethereum (PoS), and other networks all recognize that long-term stability depends on resisting arbitrary changes. These systems prioritize immutable rules that cannot be changed by temporary majorities, a layered governance model that balances autonomy and coordination, and voluntary consensus mechanisms where participants enforce rules, rather than relying on centralized enforcement.
The system that began on March 4, 1789, and the decentralized networks of today share a foundational truth: liberty cannot be entrusted to rulers alone—it must be preserved through structural decentralization.
If you are interested in this research, please follow our R&D work at United States Lab.