One of the biggest enemies of innovation is the instauration of a false dichotomy. Blockchains, and the field of distributed computing is general, has been suffering from this hidden malady for decades: as a general rule of thumb, a distributed computing system should be either permissionless or permissioned (i.e., open v. closed). Below a comparison of the features of each setting:
|Consensus protocol||Nakamoto||BFT family||BFT family|
|Network setting||Open to everyone||Open to everyone||Enterprise/Consortium|
|Economic valuation||Higher with cryptocurrencies||Higher with cryptocurrencies||Lower due to its closed-nature|
|Identity||Pseudo-anonymous||Wildcard identity list||Wildcard identity list|
|Regulation compliance||Non-compliant||Legal and compliant||Legal and compliant|
|Sybil-resistance||PoW/PoS (costly)||Wildcard identity list (affordable)||Wildcard identity list (affordable)|
Our paradigm-shifting blockchain architecture challenges this decades-old conventionalism: by being both permissionless and permissioned at the same time (i.e., a permissioned blockchain that is safe to execute on an open, permissionless environment that includes everyone), we are able to cherry-pick the best features of both settings (highlighted in bold in the table above).
An additional advantage is that there is no need to create permissioned variants of permissionless blockchains, a common activity that is wasting lots of development resources: both settings can co-exist on the same blockchain network.