One of the main problems of blockchain coins concerns the so-called scalability trilemma that we have already talked about on several occasions; for those unfamiliar with the topic we begin to explain that a trilemma is nothing more than a three-variable problem in which only two of the three options can be satisfied simultaneously. In the case of cryptocurrencies the three variables are security, decentralization and scalability; since security is a fundamental factor for a cryptocurrency and that it cannot be done without, it can be deduced that a currency is either scalable or centralized. Extending this reasoning to consensus protocols, what turns out is that only the POW protocol (acronym of proof of work) is compatible with a fully decentralized blockchain, while the POS consensus protocols (acronym of proof of stake) tend almost inevitably to centralization since the wealthiest users are also the ones who gain the most weight in the block validation process. Consequently, however, the POW blockchains are not very scalable, while the POS ones are ideal for managing a large number of processes (that's why ethereum is taking so much effort to convert to a POS protocol); this was however true until a few years ago, thanks to the DeFi platforms, in fact, it is now possible to imagine a POS blockchain which, in addition to being scalable, is also substantially decentralized. In the POS networks, in fact, the miners are the function of the miners, who then take care of validating the blocks; through the use of the DeFi platforms, therefore, it is possible to hypothesize a system in which small savers join together in the construction of a node, put their coins together and, therefore, they can compete with the nodes that have the greatest power of focus in terms of wealth.
Obviously the commissions received for validating the blocks are accumulated by the platform which then redistributes them proportionally to the individual users; therefore, this type of platform works a bit like a bank, that is, they offer an intermediation service that provides both the safekeeping of coins and an annuity due to the subsequent distribution of commissions. Equally clearly, however, if we assume that this brokerage is offered by private companies what happens and that we reiterate the current model, simply the banks as we know them today would change their nature, but not their function, it would reconfirm the need for credible intermediaries and reliable and we would have concluded very little; however, if we assume that these platforms have decentralized governance, that is, they work like DAOs (English acronym that sounds like decentralized autonomous organizations in Italian) here we would potentially have solved the trilemma of scalability, because we would have very scalable coins by definition (because they use a protocol of consent POS) and we would avoid the risk that the system becomes too centralized by aggregating small stakeholders through a series of DeFi platforms managed by means of decentralized governance. A system of this type would be decidedly desirable, the POS consent protocols, in fact, do not require enormous computing power (as in the POW protocols) and consequently consume much less energy, being however capable of processing a clearly higher number of transactions; the great hesitancy of the community towards the POS protocols derives from the centralization processes to which the coins that exploit these protocols are inevitably subject, for the rest, however, the POS protocols are more efficient than the POW protocols. If therefore the DeFi allows to avoid the risk of centralization to which POS coins are naturally subject, we could see a standard emerge and the market would almost inevitably end up orienting itself to the use of this consensus protocol.
