Web3 项目的去中心化争议，无非这几点：少数人掌控节点、普通用户说话没分量、代码不公开可能藏猫腻。​

下面就说说@cookiedotfun上的这 9 个项目的情况：​
@recallnet 说是分布式节点，但数量少，核心节点还被项目方相关机构握着，治理代币也集中在少数人手里，普通用户投票没啥用，还得再看看。​#Recall
@tenprotocol 说验证节点分散在各地，但想当验证节点门槛高，真正独立的没几个。项目方对大事还有否决权，慢慢往社区交权，完全去中心化还早。​#TenProtocol
@vooi_io 没怎么说清楚去中心化的事，初期就靠几个核心团队维护节点，代码公开得也少，看不出去中心化的样子，以后会不会改还不知道。​#VOOI
@Almanak__ 节点分布还行，找了不少独立机构当验证节点。但治理看持币多少投票，大代币持有者影响太大，得让普通用户更有话语权才行。#Almanak​
@elympics_a 链下计算节点由社区成员运营，节点挺分散。用 DAO 模式治理，大家能提案投票，但活跃用户少了点，得再多些人参与。​#ElympicsAI
@JoinSapien 靠社区治理，节点由社区成员自愿运行，数量多分布广。代码全公开，谁都能查能提建议，治理代币分得也比较散，普通用户能说了算，去中心化做得不错。​#Sapien
@OpenledgerHQ 存储和身份验证节点都由社区成员自己管，分布多样。大事都得社区投票定，项目方只负责执行，代码也公开让人监督，去中心化在同类里算好的。​#OpenLedger
@build_on_bob 节点由社区运营商维护，进出机制开放，能保持动态的去中心化。靠社区提案和代币投票决定发展，代码公开能审计，就是链上交易确认节点还有点集中，得接着优化。​#BuildOnBOB
@LABtrade_ 存储和认证节点由多个独立主体运营，没人能独揽大权。定期公开节点和决策情况，代码公开鼓励大家提建议，治理结合了代议制和直接投票，既有效率又兼顾了去中心化。#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.