Observing Decentralization in Autonomous Worlds Through the Scroll DAO Governance Pause
In the field of Autonomous Worlds (AW), decentralization is often seen as a core value, but the relationship between decentralization and “permissionless” remains worth considering.
AW is usually described as a “fully decentralized” digital world, but is this truly achievable? Whether it’s a game, a world, or an application, once monetization is involved, it implies the existence of “profit-seekers.” Can it still be considered fully decentralized?
The recent pause in governance by the Scroll DAO provides a useful reference point: DAOs usually have a core management team, whose authority is constrained by smart contracts and DAO member votes. Since the DAO’s legal entity is often an LLC, governance can exhibit a certain degree of “shadow centralization.” This reflects a reality: survival and commercialization often influence the implementation of autonomy.
AW faces a similar situation. Because of the term “autonomous,” many assume AW must be fully decentralized and permissionless. In theory, this is correct. But from 2022 to 2024, we’ve seen multiple AW or FOCG projects shut down, and these closures were closely tied to insufficient monetization. This shows that if autonomy is idealized too strictly, sustaining the project becomes difficult.
Looking at user behavior, most mainstream users care more about “fun and convenience” than governance models. For example, when an exchange suffers a hack, users expect their assets to be frozen immediately to prevent further loss, indicating that they care less about whether the platform is decentralized (DEX) and more about the protection a centralized exchange (CEX) provides. Similarly, after DeFi went mainstream, most people log in via Google rather than a wallet. This suggests that if AW only offers wallet logins to enforce strict technical autonomy, it may be prioritizing ideology over market needs.
Get Raphael Joe’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Thus, if AW continues to emphasize “our world is autonomous,” does this autonomy truly matter to users? Do users genuinely want to participate in governance and decision-making, or are they primarily interested in “how enjoyable the world is”? The latter seems more reflective of mainstream user behavior, as governance participation can be cumbersome.
This highlights a core issue in the AW space. Within the community, people often say, “Fewer developers are building decentralized applications, and this is a serious concern,” but they also emphasize “audience and market competition,” which seems contradictory. If AW focuses on commercialization and profitability, it indicates that teams are seeking users, while the number of people primarily concerned with decentralization is limited.
If every AW strives for “more decentralization,” construction costs become very high. Without VC support, teams usually cannot bear the burden. This is a classic chicken-and-egg problem:
If an AW aims for full autonomy, decentralization is required, and costs are high, making it difficult for teams to sustain;
If an AW seeks funding support, it often conflicts with the decentralization vision.
From the Scroll DAO event, we can consider whether AW needs to strictly uphold decentralization narratives, or if it might be more effective, like DeFi, to focus on gaining broader recognition of AW as the future of digital environments, rather than solely emphasizing a “decentralized digital world.”
