Defining Decentralization: An Ontological Perspective

Decentralization as a concept in computer science has existed for over half a century. Despite its fundamental role across domains such as security, distributed computing, artificial intelligence, cloud infrastructures, and Internet of Things (IoT) architectures, there remains no universally accepted definition of decentralization applicable across computer communication systems. This has become increasingly problematic with the emergence of decentralized AI and machine learning paradigms, including collaborative training, distributed inference, blockchain-based, and agentic AI, where decentralization is often treated as a core design objective. Meanwhile, existing approaches frequently conflate decentralization with related notions such as distribution of trust or specific implementation paradigms. Such ambiguity creates inconsistencies in system analysis, limits comparability between works, and weakens the rigor of formal reasoning surrounding communication architectures and protocol design. In this work, we define this research gap as the Decentralization Problem. We analyze the formal-semantic, epistemological, and pragmatic foundations of decentralization and introduce a graph-based ontology defining it as both relational and subject-specific property of computer communication systems. The framework formally distinguishes decentralization from distribution and supports evaluation through two novel metrics: Void Tolerance and Imperviousness. We also provide a browser-based implementation that enables automated classification and metric computation of arbitrary systems. Instantiations to federated learning and blockchain architectures show consistent, comparable assessments where existing definitions produce incomplete or contradictory conclusions, providing a domain-independent foundation for analysing decentralization across heterogeneous systems.

Alignment of a Total Automation Economy

We consider economic theory from the perspective of a total automation economy, one with no human involvement in production either in manufacturing or in management. One can naturally ask whether a total automation economy is fundamentally a centrally planned economy or, alternatively, whether efficiency demands decentralization into local decisions by competing agents -- agentic production. A soviet economist, Leonid Kantorovich, developed linear programming as a method companies or governments can use to optimize production. Ironically, he is also generally credited with showing that the most efficient production is achieved through decentralization -- a free market economy with competing agents. Here we review Kantorovich's dualization in detail. We take the objective of the economy to be maximizing production weighted by (human) market price. A fundamental issue is whether an automated pursuit of this objective might have alignment vulnerabilities as the economy evolves. Another question is whether dualization provides insight into the utility of agentic AI systems (multi-agent AI systems) generally.