Topic: Justin Bons Said Ethereum is More Decentralized Than Bitcoin (Read 537 times)

Last I checked updates have only ever been performed with vast majority consensus and have waited to get that consensus. So not sure what you're talking about there.

Yeah Bitcoin Core is the main dev team because it inherited from Satoshi, so that isn't surprising. My point was that is still a lot better than the situation with Ethereum where Vitalik and crew make all the decisions and hard forks to their hearts content and everyone has to go along with it or get kicked off. Bitcoin Core has at least settled on an inclusive strategy of not kicking anyone out, and only doing updates that get strong consensus. Bitcoin Core leads the direction of updates yeah, but the community controls if those updates actually get implemented, and any users who don't want to comply don't have to and are still part of the network once an update does get approved and implemented by the network participants.

The 1 cpu 1 vote argument doesn't even make sense tbh. It was NEVER 1 cpu 1 vote. That was the idea the concept was based upon, but in the actual protocol Satoshi had to do what is technically possible. There is no perfect way to assign a vote per computer or network participant without centralization, so ironically your desire for 1 cpu 1 vote would ONLY work on a very centralized system. If designing a 1 cpu 1 vote system was doable in a decentralized system he would have just done that. What is technically possible is 1 hash 1 vote, which of course is the system he actually set up. It's still the exact same system today, it's not like Bitcoin changed away from Satoshi's system to something different. It's just that Bitcoin is so popular and there's a huge economic engine driving that competition, which means instead of individuals competing with their home desktop we have individuals, companies, govts, etc competing in a grand global decentralized competition with purpose-built machines. Don't let unattainable ideals blind you to reality. Nothing has changed, you're just pretending an ideal existed that never did.



As I pointed out. Bitcoin decentralization ain't perfect (basically what I was referring to there is the development operations, in that Bitcoin Core is dominant, even though its still a lot better structure than at least most other cryptos including Ethereum), but its a hell of a lot more decentralized than any other cryptocurrency. Bitcoin's strong decentralization, as compared to the rest of Cryptos relatively rather tame decentralization, is one of the things that makes Bitcoin so unique! So the idea of claiming Bitcoin (by faaaaaarrrrrr the most decentralized cryptocurrency) isn't decentralized and that fairly centralized or even highly centralized cryptocurrencies are more decentralized....well that's just plain stupid. It gets claimed all the time and its always someone with an agenda to try to prop up specific cryptos by lying about Bitcoin. Honestly its shameful and is part of the scammy culture of the altcoin community. You aren't making a good argument by trying to defned that shameful lying simply because you're mad that Bitcoin is only very decentralized and not the perfect unattainable ideal of decentralization.

correction ill fix your quote

2. no other devs/team has been allowed to even propose a protocol change, let alone be left to see if anyone adopts it in years(REKT) without cores blessing or involvement
3. because of the trick of code core changed to not need network wide consensus to activate core new features
5. yes there are many farms dotted around the planet, but gone are the days of 1 cpu 1 vote

as for why we need to stop brushing things under the carpet while dreaming utopia. mentioning harsh truths will keep your eyes open to look at the central points of failure and be alert when they get even more worse..
dont just downplay it to old words of a decade ago pretending bitcoin cant become centralised, look for the weak points, dont shy from them. scrutinise them

pretending bitcoin is fine(fully decentralised) is what the frog thought when he was cozy and warm in the saucepan of water on the oven hob

Yes this. Every time anyone makes this claim its purely an agenda to hype up some crypto, and yes as in this case sometimes includes arbitrary "scores" in order to try to trick people like there was some sort of scientific analysis done haha, when really the numbers were simply chosen to make Bitcoin's score lower than altcoin scores.

Nobody serious would ever claim Ethereum is more decentralized than Bitcoin lol.

And yet you see these claims constantly. There are always people saying Ethereum, or any other random crypto, is more decentralized than Bitcoin. The reason is because everyone knows Bitcoin is the Gold standard for decentralization and nothing else comes close, so people feel they can prop up their favorite chosen crypto by claiming its even more decentralized than Bitcoin. It's a dumb argument and always has been. But it is by no means a new argument. The founders of other cryptos, as well as the fans of other cryptos, have for years made baseless claims about how Bitcoin is not decentralized but their centralized crypto is actually super decentralized haha.


Ethereum was never remotely as decentralized as Bitcoin when Ethereum was on PoW. The Switch to PoS made Ethereum a lot more centralized than it previously had been. So it used to be much less decentralized than Bitcoin, and now it is much much less decentralized than Bitcoin.



I'm sure most people already know this. The only people who claim other cryptos are more decentralized than Bitcoin are doing it for some agenda - because they are trying to shill some crypto.


Some real quick basic points that easily illustrate that Ethereum is far more centralized than Bitcoin:
1. Huge Premine
2. Vitalik essentially controls the protocol
3. Lots of forced hard forks that Vitalik and friends decide on
4. Nodes were already quite centralized for years (anyone remember when like a third of Ethereum nodes went down when AWS servers went down, because lots of people had to run ETH nodes on centralized cloud services rather than be able to run nodes at home)
5. Now under PoS staking is very centralized in a handful of staking services because its really hard for individuals to stake


Compare to Bitcoin:
1. No premine
2. Nobody controls the protocol, though Bitcoin Core is basically the group that guides development, but that's not nearly as bad as Vitalik and crew Ethereum Foundation entirely controlling the protocol
3. Soft forks only, nobody gets kicked off who doesn't agree with changes, and only implemented once high community consensus is achieved
4. Nodes are cheap and easy to run and very decentralized
5. Bitcoin PoW is a huge industry spanning the globe made up of myriad individuals, companies, govts in healthy competition



Honestly anytime someone says Bitcoin is not decentralized the only thing you should be doing is asking what the person's agenda is in lying to you.


Bitcoin by no means has perfect decentralization, but in most ways it is extremely good. And every other cryptocurrency, certainly including Ethereum, is a complete joke compared to Bitcoin when it comes to decentralization.

People who make such statements do it deliberately to show Bitcoin in a bad light though I don't understand their motive behind this, maybe because they are holding more ETH than Bitcoin and they want ETH to get more attention than Bitcoin but they probably don't understand that the market value of ETH mostly follow Bitcoin's price and it doesn't move up or down completely independently which should be enough reason for them to know which one is more decentralized.

The public shouldn't pay attention to such things that are mere attempts to glorify one and defame the other. His explanation and reasoning don't make much sense to me. The decentralization of a cryptocurrency is dependent on a lot of factors, the fact that Ethereum's consensus protocol and supply can be changed anytime is enough proof to prove this statement wrong.

Decentralization in what context?

In the context of my post, the network will start to scale in and decrease in node count if the Core Developers increase the block size like what you want. Bigger Blocks = Higher Hardware/Bandwidth Requirements. It's the simple truth, yet you always gaslight people that it's the Core Developers fault. Why? Because they didn't listen to your mentors? You should move on, frankandbeans. They were proven to be wrong. Bitcoin is OK, and it keeps producing block by block, incentivizing the participants in block production.

" decisions made by the Core Developers, Bitcoin wins.. " <- oxymoron
actually bitcoin hasnt grown in decentralised potential in many years of cores roadmap decisions
with softening consensus to open up alot more backward capability data ignorance.. has not helped with decentralised network/data security
with softening consensus to open up alot more backward capability data ignorance.. has reduced independent user full nodes importance
with defaulting network peer services to be off.. has not helped with peer data decentralisation/security/access

but with all issues core have politicised, altered, decided on to reduce the decentralisation potential of bitcoin..
bitcoin on every measure is still more decentralised than ethereum.. but bitcoin could do even better if the bitcoin gods/politicians were less centred and a few fixes were allowed

It's not about whether the network's Sybil Protection Mechanism is POW or POS. There are people who simply say/post "this is more decentralized than that" without an agreed upon definition on what "decentralization" is. Because it's absolutely not about full node decentralization, which because of the design decisions made by the Core Developers, Bitcoin wins if that's the way we choose to measure decentralization in OP's debate.

I don't think that pos coin could be more decentralized than pow

That is crystal clear that the validators in Ethereum network can be a bunch of gangs who happen to be near the founder of Ethereum and they have the right to validate,most people,most normal people do not have over 32 Ethereum to validate transactions so they are somewhat chosen ones and they can have an outcome and impact on the road map of the Ethereum in general,the Dapps were great at sometime ago yet I have not seen such activity lately or maybe I have missed them so in reality they are not decentralized at all let alone to be better decentralized than Bitcoin,that is pure nonsense.

What I think here is that this guy dares to compare Ethereum (shitcoin) with Bitcoin. In simple words those who founded Ethereum as still active and hold a lot of pre-mined ETH while the visionary of Bitcoin known as Satoshi Nakamoto is even a human or a group of humans still unknown. What is alarming about Ethereum is now using POS which is a centralized model and Bitcoin won't have any protocol changes like Ethereum did which makes it more decentralized. The only reason everyone wants a piece of ETH is because of its ecosystem as without it you are into a ditch.

Op, it would be nice to add a source to the post, so that people can read it themselves and see where the info is coming from. As you can see, not doing that results in confusion, some assuming that you even referred to a completely different person (Justin Sun), before Despairo found a Twitter account of Justin Bons.
In any case, that's just one man's opinion. As you can see here, there are other views, claiming that Ethereum is actually less decentralized than Bitcoin.
PoS naturally leads to more centralization than PoW, which is where Bitcoin is winning as a PoW cryptocurrency.

Doesn't prevent, but delay certain transaction from getting confirmation.


You're right, although whether it's wasting money or not depends on how many address or TX they want to block. Here's an analysis which detect some pools may exclude or block certain address, https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/.

Antpool can right as well choose to censor legacy transactions, but that does not prevent the Bitcoin user from sending and receiving to segwit or legacy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every attempt to censor a particular group of transactions by a pool has proved to be a failure, and wasted money. And that's because whatever is dumped by one pool is selected by another. Therefore, I think it is wrong to refer to the network as permission-requiring, since censorship resistance isn't merely a principle, but a side effect of the game theory.

As long as honest miners overthrow malicious, hereby do not intentionally reorg the chain to reverse transactions, the system is censorship resistant.

Because possibility of intentionally exclude transaction due to other reason than tx fee rate. For example, Antpool used to exclude SegWit TX while some politician have idea to force pool exclude certain transaction.

True, I don't really understand how anyone can call something more decentralized than BTC. It's is an example of decentralization.

Instead of keeping ETH as a POW that keeps its network secured, they've made it into a POS to make every who's already rich through it become richer.

If it's about the discussion about centralization and decentralization, the most decentralized cryptocurrency is none other than Bitcoin.

Keep that in mind and whoever tells shit about Bitcoin for being lesser decentralized and comparing it to a coin that has premined and changed its consensus favoring the rich is talking nonsense.

Justin is seriously wrong about this. It well known and has been spoken of many times that Ethereum is centralized. This occurred due to the move from proof of work to proof of stake, where a few entities now control a majority of staked Ethereum and we know how this potentially enabling censorship under government pressure.

Ethereum is more decentralized in what way? It's obvious that it's easier to sync a Bitcoin full node today than an Ethereum full node because Bitcoin has lower hardware requirements.

Plus don't mention "light nodes". Haha. Those are not actual nodes that download the blockchain, and actually validate the state of the chain. Those are mere pseudo-nodes.

Ethereum is the biggest scam on the internet and should have been shut down long ago for securities fraud.
It amazes me after all these years people still haven't figured it out yet and this CBDC garbage token still retains its second place status after bitcoin.

So many idiots "invest" their money without understanding what they are investing in. That is not investing it is straight up gambling.

What's the point in listening to what altcoin people say? Of course they are going to promote the coins that they are heavily invested in and attack Bitcoin, because they say that their altcoins will replace it.

If people were doing their research, they would know that altcoins all have centralized development, huge premines and typically high degree of centralization on the protocol level. And on top of that they have no real world uses - so they always collapse when the market moves on to new hyped investments.

Ethereum is a joke. Forget about the censorship and Proof-of-Stake. Over 70% of ETH was premined. That's all the information I need to argue it's less decentralized centralized.

"Full nodes" play an unimportant role in decentralization, and it'd be my last resort as an argument. Mining is what keeps things decentralized.

Why not? They have right over which transactions they include on their block, not on other miners' blocks.

But this is a good shitcoin, right? Even without decentralization.

Of course, one can't say about any decentralization in the case of ethereum, and certainly that this decentralization is better than that of bitcoin. Statements to the contrary by public figures in the cryptoindustry will not be seen as anything other than a shilling. All this talk about ethereum's decentralization looks like complete stupidity to people who are more or less in the know. But this shitcoin is really good though.

It is two things to show Ethereum is not more decentralized than Bitcoin.

It was premined. The founder has great percent of ETH in total supply.
Its has very little validators and can not compare to Bitcoin nodes.

Lastly its blockchain was rolled back.

It is not related to decentralized or centralized even it's fact that Ethereum does not lead cryptocurrency market but Bitcoin leads it.

Sure, Ethereum is more decentralized, Vitalik owns 285 Million ETH (Satoshi is dead or doesn't exist anymore, so the fact that Bitcoin's founder owns million Bitcoin doesn't  doesn't apply to Bitcoin). Ethereum devs proposed validator limit increase From 32 To 2048 ETH, sure, a way for more decentralization, right? Also, it follows Bitcoin's price, it's such a decentralized.

If he refer to total Bitcoin nodes,


It's true most nodes use Bitcoin Core. But it totally ignore existence of other Bitcoin full node software.


It's not perfect when miner have full right to decide which transaction to be included on their mined block.


Giving 0/10 is ridiculous, on-chain government doesn't always offer better decentralization mainly due to who can vote and weight of their vote.


Without detailed reasoning, i feel 5/10 is rather low score.


I don't know what he mean by "wizard faction". But i agree Bitcoin community could be more diverse.


I'm not expert, but personally i say not true when the measurement has some flaws and lack of explanation.

Ethereum has been centralized from its PoS and right from the beginning of the project. The developers like Vitalik Buterin are centrally controlling the coin. Just like you said, the original coin is ethereum classic. The developers called the former ether as ethereum classic and hard forked the new coin as ether which he moved to. That is a shady project that paved way for coins like the recent luna which the original token which was called luna is now called lunc. The influence those Buterin have on ethereum is too much and that is enough to even call it centralized.

Consider a cryptocurrency that was rolled back by a decision of a founder and group of core developers, is decentralized and more decentralized than Bitcoin is just nothing more than stupid.

I don't know Justin Bons but his thinking is seriously wrong.

What Was The DAO?.
The DAO Hack Remedy Forks Ethereum.

Ethereum is the shitcoin that abandoned it's one USP "Code is law" the moment is was convenient for the rich creator and his friends. The guy in charge created a hard fork to protect their money instead of being a reliable block chain. The fact that it's centrally controlled is really all you need to know.

OP calls the name Justin Bons. Bons, Jon, Sun - so who are we talking about (the topic title displays all this variety of names)?  So who is this crypto-guru whose words we should fully heed?
 
For me, a clear sign of the lack of decentralization is the presence of a founder / founders (Buterin is not the only one behind the entire project), who have a huge influence on the project Ethereum.


But won’t Justin Jon OP say to this that bitcoin follows ethereum like a shadow.

Look even at the largest Tokens it has.  Centralized Tokens on an already Centralized Cryptocurrency.  It is the worst mixture you can get.

Buy USDT!  Be happy holding a Cryptocurrency that can be seized at any given point in time.  Or just frozen so you can experience the dread of never being able to use your own money again.  How nice is that, yes?

For as long as bitcoin existed and the alternative coins market was created, some people started bag holding shitcoins and then started advertising them as "better than bitcoin" in order to get them hyped up and consequently pumped so that they can make some money from that pump.

Ethereum as the biggest centralized shitcoin is one of those altcoins that people usually claimed is "better than bitcoin" in different aspects like decentralization, speed, fee, price, security, ... but the reality is that they are all worse in all those things without exception.

No matter how you take it.  There is no way Proof of Stake can ever be more Decentralized than Proof of Work.  This is all we need to say.  Ethereum puts the Wealthy into control.  Bitcoin gives every body the control handle.

Ethereum is what started as a heavily Centralized Cryptocurrency and is now choosing to only become slightly more Centralized every now and then.  If you want a comparison, make a legitimate and fair one.  These are incomparable.

@OP is correct, this is his twitter https://x.com/Justin_Bons?s=20

Incorrect.

Bitcoin has 18,215 nodes, while Ethereum has only 6,347 nodes. So BTC has more validators than ETH, the real validator is the one who run full node, not someone who stake their tokens to earn interest.

But this isn't surprising at all since he's a Bitcoin hater, just like Warren Buffet. He wrote an article about 14 reasons to not invest in BTC.

Bitcoin is more centralized because the miner rigs are spread out throughout the world. It used to be centered around China but lately it has expanded into many countries and it’s fairly distributed.

Ethereum was more decentralized when it was POW, many people just mined with their gpus and did it as a hobby. But now you need to own a large amount of ETH to be able to stake. Most retail cannot afford this amount, it’s mostly centered around the rich.

The funniest thing is that BTC doesn't have CEO, it's just works. But ETH has Vitalik, who can do whatever he wants with it. It can't be decentralized by definition.

Is this a joke? Ethereum had a pre-mine with founders backed by big money VC investors that dumped on retail.
That is the exact opposite of decentralization and the precise definition of a security pump and dump.

If that wasn't bad enough, the founders of ethereum have been pushing heavily for US central bank CBDCs to run on the ethereum network.
They have published a white paper on how this should be accomplished and make no secret about their intentions.

The white paper is freely available on the Consensys website, a company founded by ethereum devs to support ethereum.

In light of all this, the idea that ethereum is decentralized in any way shape or form is completely laughable.

I know Justin Sun as  a good marketer but not much of an analyst who says what the opinion of users are currently.


He has a whole lot to attend to on the chains he controls, he should focus more on making them usable and globally accepted and used just like Ethereum and Bitcoin rather than give us analysis that does not resonate with a whole lot of people.

I consider his opinion baseless and should be discounted as a point to consider by anyone in the space.

Yep. In the crypto world, talks about decentralization can be a sneaky way to hype up altcoins and make them look better than Bitcoin. This comparison like giving Ethereum a higher decentralization score seems like a move to grab attention and build excitement especially for the upcoming bull run. If you've been in the game for a while, you can see through the marketing tactics. It's a reminder to stay sharp and not get swayed by the buzz because there's often more to these comparisons than meets the eye

Do not think too much about this, whenever you read statements like that you need to think about the intention behind them, and it is obvious this is an attempt to try to make altcoins more appealing than bitcoin and hype them for the upcoming bull run, while trying to keep bitcoin in check at the same time, will it work? I suppose, especially with those that know nothing about this market, but for those that have been around for some time we can easily see the intent behind it.

I don’t understand the whole decentralization comparison when it is crystal clear the bitcoin nodes and how it works explain a true decentralized network, just any one can be part of the node but that doesn’t relay to Ethereum chain where validators are mostly the center of attention for the network decision making which defeats the whole point of decentralization.

i never even mentioned market cap. and has nothing to do with market cap
its got nothing to do with and i never said who was the greatest..

point is

if 2 different projects that do 2 different things. had 2 different sets of communities valuing 2 projects differently. where the projects evolve separately and upgrades happen at different times to drive sentiments of value and supply/demand to differ.. all at different times for totally different independent reasons
then there would NOT BE soo close a shadow, peg, copy of one market on the other

yet because ethereum does not have much of its own independentness to drive its own value sentiment. then it ends up just centrally copying the better currency, emulating it and using it to try finding value as it doesnt have much independent value demand/supply of its own to counter the zombie chase

..
 i could move onto other examples of ethereums lack of independence,, you know STAKING.. hint is in the name so needs no explanation

Not when they are using proof of stake where one with the biggest gun takes the shot.
Talks about diversity? What's diversity where there are 100's of ant and few elephants
The more money staked
The more control one gets
So how's something of this nature more decentralized than Bitcoin.

This is different
Shiba inu is a meme while Litecoin is a failed Bitcoin knock off
He's not comparing technology to price
What he meant is that if Ethereum is so great it's price movement wouldn't be mirroring Bitcoin and this became worse after the switch to POS.
Ethereum became more centralized after their so called upgrade.

I'm not an expert here, it's just that as far as i know bitcoin & ethereum have different structures for decentralization, bitcoin uses proof of work while ethereum uses proof of stake and clearly proof of work is more decentralized.


Technology and prices don't always go hand in hand, i'm not here for ethereum but just to straighten out point of view about the relationship between technology and prices. shiba inu has a larger market cap than litecoin according to coinmarketcap data ^[1], so does that make shiba inu technology greater than litecoin? not at all.

[1] https://coinmarketcap.com/

if ethereum is so decentralised.. then why is its market rate not independent
just look at the prices of the markets. ethereum follows bitcoin like a shadow 9#% of the time.

it doesnt have its own independent sentiment of market utility, so is not wildly different compared to bitcoin. so just centrally follows bitcoin based on the bitcoin market sentiment
in short there are not enough ETH people valuing ethereum independently to depeg ethereum from just being used as a shadow arbitrage tool for bitcoiners

from may 2021 ethereum lost its independent sentiment of utility and just became a shadow to bitcoins market.. ranging from 1btc:12eth to 1btc:20eth, slowly staying close 9#% of the time but slowly losing its own value by not being able to keep up with a 1btc:12eth peg
notice how wildly independent ethereum:btc was pre may 2021.. and then how pegged, stable it became after may 2021

You mean Justin Sun, not Justin Jon.

Ethereum was an ICO. Some of its supplies were premined just like other centralized coins.

Ethereum went from PoW to PoS. Which is another centralization. If you do not have a certain amount of ETH, you can not be a validator which is a protocol.

If people should said which one is centralized, it is Ethereum.

Bitcoin developers were not the one that created BRC tokens and Ordinal NFTs. Ethereum created ERC tokens.

Bitcoin was solely made to replace the usual currency - FIAT. I'm gonna say, it hasn't fulfilled its purpose entirely but this whole decentralization was put in place through that path; a path that ethereum only improvised on some protocols ... maybe like introducing smart contracts, DEFIs and NFTs... That doesn't make the coin more decentralized than Bitcoin, does it?

---

exactly! Why hasn't it grown beyond it's 4k limit since 2021? Secondly, what's this DApps liverage that made ethereum to create a version of BTC on Thier network? Read about that a couple of weeks ago and I didn't go into details anyway.

Sandra 🧑‍🦰

I've always suspected that big players like Bitmain could build a lot of hashrate to increasingly centralize Bitcoin. For the experts in the house, how true is it that Ethereum is more decentralized than Bitcoin? Could it be the reason the SEC isn't bothering Ethereum and may even approve spot ETH ETF?

Here's what he wrote:

"Bitcoin (BTC) – Score: 29/60
Bitcoin, the pioneer of blockchain technology, showcases a strong foundation in certain aspects of decentralization:

Validator Count: It has the second-highest validator count, earning an 8/10.
Client Ecosystem: Dominated by Bitcoin Core, leading to a 1/10 score.
Permissionless Nature: Scores a perfect 10/10, with no permissioned elements.
Governance: Lacks on-chain governance, resulting in a 0/10.
Consensus Mechanism: Proof of Work (PoW) without native delegation, scoring 5/10.
Community Diversity: A growing “wizard faction” contributes to a 5/10 score.
Ethereum (ETH) – Score: 43/60
Ethereum leads in decentralization, thanks to its robust validator ecosystem and client diversity:

Validator Count and Client Ecosystem: Achieves top marks in both, with a 10/10 for the highest validator count and most diverse client ecosystem.
Permissionless and Governance: Shares Bitcoin’s lack of on-chain governance, scoring 0/10, but is fully permissionless, scoring 10/10.
Consensus Mechanism: Transitioned to Proof of Stake (PoS) without native delegation, earning a 7/10.
Community: Its vast ecosystem with many united factions scores a 6/10.
Solana (SOL) – Score: 32/60
Solana presents a mixed picture with high validator counts but challenges in its consensus mechanism:

Validator Count: A high validator count scores 7/10.
Client Ecosystem: A reasonably diverse ecosystem earns a 7/10.
Permissionless Nature: Like Ethereum, it scores a 10/10.
Consensus Mechanism: Proof of History (PoH) and high node requirements lower its score to 2/10.
Governance: Has plans for on-chain governance, scoring 3/10.
Community: A big ecosystem with few factions scores a 3/10.
XRP (Ripple) – Score: 17/60
XRP struggles with decentralization, particularly in validator diversity and permissioned elements:

Validator Count and Client Ecosystem: Scores the lowest in these categories, with 1/10 and 0/10 respectively.
Permissioned Elements: The presence of permissioned elements further reduces its score to 0/10.
Governance and Community: No plans for on-chain governance and a small ecosystem with powerful factions result in low scores.
Cardano (ADA) – Score: 35/60
Cardano shows promise with high scores in permissionless nature and plans for on-chain governance:

Validator Count: A high unique validator count scores 7/10.
Permissionless Nature: Scores a perfect 10/10.
Consensus Mechanism: Native delegation and plans for on-chain governance contribute to higher scores in these areas.
Avalanche (AVAX) and TRON (TRX)
Both blockchains present unique cases in decentralization, with Avalanche showing strength in its governance model and TRON in its fully implemented on-chain governance."