Web3 項目的去中心化爭議，無非這幾點：少數人掌控節點、普通用戶說話沒分量、代碼不公開可能藏貓膩。​

下面就說說@cookiedotfun上的這 9 個項目的情況：​
@recallnet 說是分布式節點，但數量少，核心節點還被項目方相關機構握着，治理代幣也集中在少數人手裏，普通用戶投票沒啥用，還得再看看。​#Recall
@tenprotocol 說驗證節點分散在各地，但想當驗證節點門檻高，真正獨立的沒幾個。項目方對大事還有否決權，慢慢往社區交權，完全去中心化還早。​#TenProtocol
@vooi_io 沒怎麼說清楚去中心化的事，初期就靠幾個核心團隊維護節點，代碼公開得也少，看不出去中心化的樣子，以後會不會改還不知道。​#VOOI
@Almanak__ 節點分布還行，找了不少獨立機構當驗證節點。但治理看持幣多少投票，大代幣持有者影響太大，得讓普通用戶更有話語權才行。#Almanak​
@elympics_a 鏈下計算節點由社區成員運營，節點挺分散。用 DAO 模式治理，大家能提案投票，但活躍用戶少了點，得再多些人參與。​#ElympicsAI
@JoinSapien 靠社區治理，節點由社區成員自願運行，數量多分布廣。代碼全公開，誰都能查能提建議，治理代幣分得也比較散，普通用戶能說了算，去中心化做得不錯。​#Sapien
@OpenledgerHQ 存儲和身分驗證節點都由社區成員自己管，分布多樣。大事都得社區投票定，項目方只負責執行，代碼也公開讓人監督，去中心化在同類裏算好的。​#OpenLedger
@build_on_bob 節點由社區運營商維護，進出機制開放，能保持動態的去中心化。靠社區提案和代幣投票決定發展，代碼公開能審計，就是鏈上交易確認節點還有點集中，得接着優化。​#BuildOnBOB
@LABtrade_ 存儲和認證節點由多個獨立主體運營，沒人能獨攬大權。定期公開節點和決策情況，代碼公開鼓勵大家提建議，治理結合了代議制和直接投票，既有效率又兼顧了去中心化。#LAB
The controversies surrounding the decentralization of Web3 projects boil down to a few points: a small number of people control the nodes, ordinary users have little say, and the code is not open to the public, which may hide something fishy.​
Here's what's going on with these 9 projects on @cookiedotfun:​
@recallnet claims to have distributed nodes, but the number is small, and the core nodes are still held by institutions related to the project party. The governance tokens are also concentrated in the hands of a few people. Ordinary users' votes are useless, so we'll have to wait and see.​
@tenprotocol says that verification nodes are scattered in various places, but the threshold to become a verification node is high, and there are not many truly independent ones. The project party still has the right to veto major issues. It is gradually transferring power to the community, and full decentralization is still a long way off.​
@vooi_io hasn't made it clear about decentralization. In the early stage, it relied on a few core teams to maintain nodes, and the code was rarely made public. It doesn't look decentralized, and it's unknown whether it will change in the future.​
@Almanak__ has a good node distribution and has found many independent institutions as verification nodes. However, governance is based on the number of tokens held for voting, and large token holders have too much influence. It is necessary to give ordinary users more say.​
The off-chain computing nodes of @elympics_a are operated by community members, and the nodes are quite scattered. It uses the DAO model for governance, allowing everyone to propose and vote, but there are too few active users, and more people need to participate.​
@JoinSapien relies on community governance, with nodes operated voluntarily by community members, with a large number and wide distribution. The code is fully open to the public, so anyone can check and make suggestions. The governance tokens are also relatively scattered, and ordinary users can have the final say, so the decentralization is well done.​
The storage and identity verification nodes of @OpenledgerHQ are managed by community members themselves, with diverse distributions. Major issues must be decided by community voting, and the project party is only responsible for implementation. The code is also open to public supervision, and its decentralization is good among similar projects.​
The nodes of @build_on_bob are maintained by community operators, with an open entry and exit mechanism, which can maintain dynamic decentralization. The development is determined by community proposals and token voting, and the code is open for auditing. However, the confirmation nodes for on-chain transactions are still somewhat concentrated and need further optimization.​
The storage and authentication nodes of @LABtrade_ are operated by multiple independent entities, so no one can monopolize power. It regularly discloses node and decision-making information, the code is open to encourage suggestions, and the governance combines representative system and direct voting, which balances efficiency and decentralization.