So why did Luke Dashjr say "Hashrate is irrelevant at this point"?
I won't pretend to know what his opinion is, I'll just give you mine.
1) Mining isn't decentralized — pools are (allegedly, not really).
Why are pools not decentralized? Because the interests of "rival" countries converge more often than most realize (More context:
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/rivalry-between-countries-is-curated ).
Hashrate aggregates into ~5–7 top pools; 2–3 could cross 51% at times.
Miners "vote with feet", but:
- Payout variance pushes them to big pools.
- Pools integrate with regulated fiat ramps and insurers; they may adopt OFAC/blacklist templates to avoid headaches.
Template power: Pools select transactions. If major pools adopt "policy clients" (e.g., template filters, blacklists), settlement becomes steerable — even if blocks remain valid under consensus.
So what? Incentives favor pool compliance with state policy — especially when insurance, utilities, and public listings are involved.
2) Hardware & energy are choke-points (supply-chain centralization)
- ASIC oligopoly. 2–3 manufacturers dominate. Firmware signing, remote management, and replacement cycles create vendor leverage.
- Jurisdictional energy. Large industrial miners rely on permits, grid interconnects, subsidies. In a low Gross Consent Product environment, regulators swap "ideals" for "stability" — conditional access > rights.
- Policy carrot/stick: cheap power for curtailment agreements, transaction policies, ESG attestations; penalties for non-compliant operators.
So what? If you need the grid and the power plant, the power plant owns you, and guess who owns the power plant.
I have just described the current state of mining "decentralization". Of course this could improve/worsen in the future.
Unless mining decentralization improves significantly, increasing hashrate is irrelevant at this point.
