"Leave testing" is a newer thinking tool used to check the dependence of projects and network centralization. It can become a key test to evaluate decentralized projects, and can also be improved and upgraded into a risk rating tool. (Preliminary summary: V God bought 30,000 $ANON coins and the price soared 140%. What anonymous post is he optimistic about?) (Background supplement: CZ and V God called for orders together! Bioscience meme coins increased a thousand times , hot money is pouring into the DeSci decentralized science track) Vitalik Buterin, the founder of Ethereum, once elaborated on this thinking suggestion in the blog article Making Ethereum alignment legible: Regarding decentralization and security issues, it is necessary to ensure that reliance on centralized infrastructure is minimized and censorship loopholes are minimized. To this end, the methods we can test and evaluate include: "Walk Away Test" and "Internal Attack Test". Among them, "internal attack testing" refers to launching independent attacks on the system to observe how much harm will be caused to discover vulnerabilities; while "leave testing" is a newer thinking tool used to check projects and network centers The degree of dependence on decentralization can become a key test for evaluating decentralized projects, and can also be improved and upgraded into a risk rating tool. Making Ethereum alignment legible, please check the original text: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2024/09/28/alignment.html What is "leave testing"? If your team and servers disappeared tomorrow, would your application still work? This is the core testing idea of ​​"leave testing" - it is a thinking tool that can be used to evaluate whether a Web3 project, platform or protocol has true independent operation capabilities and sustainable development value. "Leaving the test" is closely related to the technical philosophy of decentralization and autonomy of the blockchain. The thinking directions that can be derived from this test include: Project development: If the development team is disbanded, can the project still operate independently? Is there an active community that can take over the project after the team leaves? Is the project's code open source and inviting developers to continue improving it? Are there decentralized validator nodes to protect the network, or sufficient community support to maintain development? Economic model: Does the project have an economic model for sustainable operation? Does the project have application scenarios for sustainable application? Does the asset appreciation of the project essentially rely on speculative manipulation or centralized control? In terms of community governance: Do all project participants have ways to fairly participate in decision-making? Can the project initiate decision-making mechanisms and solve problems without identifying core managers? Does the project have to rely on a few core members to manage it, or does it have a broader basis for collective wisdom and collective governance? Why is "leaving the test" important? If a project relies too much on the founding team or certain key personnel to operate; if a network must rely on a fixed server to process data, then it is still centralized in nature, and the long-term viability of the project or network , value, and even the ability to resist censorship and risk may be questioned. The importance of "leaving testing" lies in the fact that this thinking tool can uncover the actual dependence of a project or network on centralized infrastructure, so that the project or network can be effectively improved. The technical philosophy it relies on is firm "Decentralization". In 2017, Vitalik Buterin, the founder of Ethereum, wrote this in an early blog post discussing the concept of decentralization: "Decentralization" is one of the most common words in the field of cryptoeconomics, and is often used as a direct term. Basis is used to measure whether a network is a blockchain network. However, there is also often a lot of confusion and confusion surrounding what the word actually means. Vitalik Buterin pointed out: When people discuss a certain decentralization issue, they are actually discussing three independent aspects: Is the architecture centralized or decentralized? For example, how many computers does this system consist of? How many computers can this system tolerate and continue to function after crashing at any one time? Is politics centralized or decentralized? For example, how many individuals and organizations can ultimately control the computers that make up this system? Is it logically centralized or decentralized? For example, are the system interface and database structure a single whole? Or an unstructured group? If the users and providers of the system are split into two, can they still perform as completely independent units? As for the role and significance of emphasizing "decentralization", Vitalik Buterin also gave a clear explanation for this in a 2018 blog post: Fault tolerance: A decentralized system has a lower probability of unexpected failure because it is decentralized. Chemical systems rely on many independent components. In theory, the probability of independent components becoming out of date at the same time is relatively low. Resistant to attacks: Decentralized systems make it more costly to be destroyed and manipulated by attacks because they lack a sensitive central point. The cost and difficulty of launching an attack on a system with a clear central point is significantly lower than that of a decentralized system. Prevent collusion: If participants in a decentralized system conspire to benefit themselves at the expense of other participants, they will pay a higher price than participants in a centralized system. Core Value: A key test for evaluating decentralized projects. From the logic of the "leave test", Bitcoin can be considered to have passed this test: the public does not know where Satoshi Nakamoto is, but Bitcoin can rely on the decentralized network Road and global developers continue to develop. In Ethereum, founder Vitalik Buterin mentioned on the forum in 2022: Almost all Rollups currently are not mature, and most use auxiliary means called Training Wheels to ensure operation. However, the auxiliary means of Training Wheels reflect the Rollup project's reliance on "manual intervention" on the other hand. The risk of Layer 2 network that does not rely on Training Wheels is lower; the more it relies on Training Wheels, the higher the risk of Layer 2 network. To this end, Vitalik Buterin and others graded the Rollup project's dependence on Training Wheels: Stage 0 (complete dependence), Stage 1 (partial dependence), and Stage 2 (complete abandonment). Subsequently, the L2beat website revised the classification scheme through soliciting opinions from the community, and upgraded it to "Layer2 Risk Rating Indicators" in June 2024 to conduct risk ratings for different Layer2 projects. Training Wheels (common translation: auxiliary wheels) are certain restrictive mechanisms or measures added to ensure safety and stability in the early implementation of Rollup technology. The Rollup protocol of Training Wheels needs to be implemented, which is usually not yet possible...

#ETH