Is GCUL an ‘XRP Killer’? Critics Question Google’s Centralized Blockchain
Whereas some have dubbed Google Cloud Common Ledger an “ XRP killer,” critics stay skeptical, arguing that its centralized management by Google runs counter to the core rules of decentralization.
The Debate Over Centralization vs. Decentralization
The just lately launched Google Cloud Common Ledger (GCUL), a non-public and permissioned blockchain, is being positioned as a safe platform for managing the total lifecycle of digital property. Constructed on a “partnership mannequin,” GCUL is designed to enrich current enterprise frameworks moderately than compete with them. Focused at monetary establishments, the platform guarantees important advantages for each service suppliers and their purchasers.
Though some have dubbed GCUL an “ XRP killer,” its debut has left components of the business skeptical. Critics argue that irrespective of how massive or well-resourced a platform could also be, it can’t be thought-about actually decentralized whether it is owned or managed by a single entity.
Others, nonetheless, see Google’s technical experience and monetary power as key benefits. They recommend that moderately than constructing a blockchain from scratch, niche-focused initiatives could discover it extra environment friendly to launch on GCUL. This view is echoed by Luigi D’Onorio DeMeo, Chief Technique Officer at Ava Labs, who anticipates that well-funded, crypto-forward enterprises will more and more choose to deploy their very own Layer 1 chains.
“Because the market matures and demand will increase, most firms is not going to be prepared to construct a sequence from scratch and can as a substitute go for a stack resembling Avalanche, which permits them to launch their very own L1 in minutes,” DeMeo explains.
That perspective is challenged by those that reject the notion that permissioned programs qualify as blockchains. Yann Régis-Gianas, Head of Core Engineering at Nomadic Labs, argues that whereas Google could reach attracting companions to GCUL, its lack of decentralization means it capabilities extra like a database than a blockchain.
Shahaf Bar-Geffen, CEO of COTI, shares this sentiment, asserting {that a} blockchain can’t be thought-about public no matter its effectivity.
“Whereas GCUL is positioned as a Layer 1, its non-public and permissioned nature—managed solely by Google—diverges considerably from the ethos of public chains like Ethereum. A centrally managed chain like GCUL may provide larger effectivity for particular institutional use circumstances, but it surely is not going to inherit the advantages of being totally decentralized and ‘trustless,’” Bar-Geffen argues.
Is GCUL ‘Credibly Impartial’?
At its launch, GCUL was reportedly described by one Google government as a “credibly impartial” platform—a declare that sparked debate.
In written feedback to Bitcoin.com Information, Bar-Geffen known as Widmann’s neutrality declare “intriguing,” however questioned its feasibility. He famous that in a system the place Google controls node participation and doubtlessly information flows, true neutrality is tough to attain. Even when Google pursues impartiality by means of audits and requirements, Bar-Geffen warns that company pursuits might nonetheless affect choices. Centralized management, he provides, might lead to unilateral downtime or chain rollbacks.
One in all GCUL’s key promoting factors is its potential to deal with the fragmentation that plagues digital finance. But critics argue that it might as a substitute deepen fragmentation by making a closed ecosystem restricted to Google’s companions. Régis-Gianas sees this as an extension of Google’s longstanding technique of constructing “walled gardens.”
“The actual promise of blockchains is composability and interoperability. Each new walled backyard pushes us farther from that aim,” Régis-Gianas contends.
Bar-Geffen agrees, suggesting {that a} closed ecosystem round GCUL is a probable end result given its permissioned construction and Google’s historical past in tech.
“This fragmentation undermines Web3’s core goal of world interoperability, the place property and information move seamlessly throughout chains with out gatekeepers—although there are plans to connect with the broader Web3 ecosystem for liquidity,” he provides.
