 
 
A leading crypto fund executive is urging the industry to draw a hard line against centralized blockchain architectures, arguing that permissioned systems contradict the movement’s foundational ethos.
Blockchains generally fall along a decentralization spectrum, but a core difference is whether participation in consensus is permissionless. In fully decentralized networks, anyone can validate transactions under transparent rules, typically through Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake, which rely on token-based economic incentives.
By contrast, permissioned systems restrict validator participation to approved entities, often resembling Proof-of-Authority models that depend on trust in designated actors. Centralized designs can offer performance efficiencies and regulatory alignment, but critics argue they sacrifice censorship resistance, credible neutrality, and immutability.
Justin Bons, founder and CIO of Cyber Capital, insists that several prominent networks fall into the latter category and should be rejected by the crypto community.
Bons points to Ripple’s Unique Node List, which he says effectively makes validators permissioned, as divergence from the centrally published list risks network forks and concentrates influence with the Ripple Foundation and affiliated entities.
 
The founder raises similar concerns about Stellar, where recommended Tier 1 organizations are published by the Stellar Development Foundation, leading to high validator overlap and placing practical authority in the hands of the list curator.
Bons also characterizes Canton and Hedera as fully permissioned at the validator level. Algorand retains centralized elements through its permissioned relay nodes, even though participation nodes have become more accessible after the implementation of a peer-to-peer transaction propagation alternative. In Bons’ view, the extent to which relay nodes remain structurally necessary is unresolved.
For the Cyber Capital CIO, the issue is binary. A blockchain is either fully permissionless or it is not, and any reliance on authority undermines crypto’s raison d’être.
Bons maintains that institutional discomfort with open networks is akin to early internet skepticism, predicting that native, decentralized platforms will ultimately prevail as the sector evolves and redistributes power away from centralized control.