Technology Industry Transformation: When AI, Big Capital, and Decentralization Converge in a New Era

In a short period, the tech and crypto industries have witnessed a series of momentum shifts that reshape market orientation. From AI security controversies to massive funding waves, from integrating traditional banking systems with blockchain to experimenting with new infrastructure—each event reveals a fundamental reality: the industry is at a crossroads between institutional centralization of power and the need for technological decentralization. The tension between centralization and decentralization has become the core narrative shaping the future evolution of the crypto and tech ecosystems.

The First Tension: National Security vs Ethical Principles

The first momentum occurred when AI company Anthropic faced pressure from the Pentagon. The U.S. defense agency demanded Anthropic remove security restrictions on AI models related to “autonomous weapons” and “mass surveillance,” with a tight deadline. Anthropic’s refusal triggered a chain reaction across the industry.

This rejection is not merely a technical issue but a symbol of the fundamental conflict between two forms of centralization: state power centralization versus corporate responsibility centralization. The Pentagon represents concentrated national security authority; Anthropic embodies concentrated private technological power. When these clash, the question arises: should tech companies yield to government pressure, or should they uphold their independent ethical standards?

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s support for Anthropic’s stance exposes a perception gap in the industry. Although both are large corporate players (in terms of centralized capital and influence), they chose to unite against government pressure. Conversely, Trump’s decision to block a $200 million government contract with Anthropic demonstrates how state power (the highest form of centralization) still dominates when national security interests are at stake.

On the other hand, the geopolitical complexity is evident: some commentators warn that if the U.S. refuses to develop advanced AI defense tech, competitors like China and Russia will do so unencumbered by ethical constraints. In this logic, centralizing technological power in responsible actors might be preferable to dispersing it among actors without ethical considerations. This dialectic shows that both centralization and decentralization carry risks.

The Second Wave: Capital as the Main Driver of the Ecosystem

OpenAI’s announcement of a $110 billion private funding round shifts the discussion into a different economic terrain. Investors include NVIDIA ($30 billion), Amazon (up to $50 billion), and SoftBank—three institutions with enormous financial clout, concentrated in a few hands. In the past four months, OpenAI has raised over $40 billion, despite still projecting cumulative losses exceeding $115 billion.

This phenomenon exemplifies extreme capital centralization in the AI era. Three major institutional players are investing colossal sums into a company not yet profitable. A Wall Street veteran with 45 years of experience commented in surprise: “This is the first time I’ve seen the three smartest investors put in $110 billion into a loss-making company.”

This funding is not just about belief in the technology but about economic power centralization. When three financial giants can shape the trajectory of the global AI industry, questions of power balance become critical. Can innovation still be decentralized when access to capital is so concentrated? Or is decentralization in this era only feasible at the application layer, not the foundational infrastructure?

Ironically, the crypto community—initially born as a reaction against traditional financial centralization (post-2008)—now witnesses major capital flows into similarly centralized AI actors. Paradigm, a top crypto VC firm, announced raising up to $1.5 billion for investments in AI and robotics. This capital shift from crypto to AI indicates that narratives of growth centered on decentralized technology are being overtaken by narratives of capital centralization in the AI sector.

The Third Wave: Transformation of the Workforce Structure

Block, a fintech company owned by Jack Dorsey, laid off 40% of its staff (~4,000 employees), with technical divisions experiencing up to 70% layoffs. The reason: productivity per engineer increased by 40% since September, thanks to AI tools. This news quickly sparked debate about labor market transformation.

Here, we see a new form of decentralization: more efficient distribution of labor via AI automation. As AI tools can take over repetitive tasks, the need for large volumes of standard-skilled workers diminishes. However, this decentralization does not mean emancipation—in fact, it tends to concentrate remaining jobs among high-level specialists, creating a more hierarchical labor market structure centered on premium skills.

Opposing views argue that Block’s layoffs are a correction of pandemic-era overrecruitment, not evidence of AI replacing engineers. They emphasize that this layer is more about business cycle management than technology. Regardless of interpretation, the impact remains: traditional decentralization of workplaces shifts toward a structure more focused on expertise and automation.

The Fourth Wave: Integration and Regulation in the Crypto Ecosystem

SoFi and Solana: When Traditional Banking Enters Blockchain

US licensed bank SoFi now officially supports deposits and withdrawals of assets on the Solana network. About 13.7 million users can directly hold and transfer SOL via banking apps, without needing crypto exchanges. This is a symbolic moment: direct integration between traditional centralized finance (banking) and decentralized blockchain infrastructure.

However, this integration presents a paradox. While blockchain aims to eliminate intermediaries, banking integration reintroduces a new intermediary layer. All transactions must pass KYC (Know Your Customer), centralizing identity data within traditional financial institutions. In other words, decentralized technology (blockchain) is being entangled again by centralized regulation and identity control.

Crypto ETFs: Gateways for Institutional Capital

Bitwise applied for a spot XRP ETF, while major financial institutions managing $7 trillion in assets accelerate filings for Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs. These moves are seen as “on-ramps” for traditional capital into crypto markets. Yet, from a centralization-decentralization perspective, ETFs consolidate crypto ownership within centralized institutional frameworks.

When retail investors buy Bitcoin via ETFs, they do not hold the assets directly—they hold claims against assets stored by centralized custodians. This is a paradox of decentralization: technologically decentralized assets become centralized again in fiduciary custody. The crypto community is divided: some see this as a crucial step toward mass adoption; others view it as a dilution of the original decentralization philosophy.

Prediction Markets and Regulatory Challenges

Insider trading incidents on Polymarket and Kalshi—where OpenAI employees used internal info to bet—highlight how decentralized prediction markets can become centralized through asymmetric information. While these platforms aim to avoid intermediaries, they are subject to localized regulations.

Kalshi’s CEO responded to controversy over “war prediction markets” by explaining regulatory differences between the U.S. and foreign platforms. This reveals a reality: technological decentralization does not eliminate regulatory centralization. Instead, it creates a multi-jurisdictional arena where global actors must navigate differing regulatory centralizations across countries.

The Fifth Wave: Ethereum Ecosystem and the ZK Dilemma

Vitalik Buterin provided a specific timeline for Ethereum’s expansion roadmap: by 2026, ZK-EVM clients will begin participating in network verification (~5%), with gradual increases toward a 3-of-5 proof system in subsequent years. This rare announcement—since Vitalik seldom provides concrete schedules—signals strategic certainty.

However, this strategy raises questions about centralization. If Ethereum’s future increasingly depends on certain ZK-EVM clients, the core validation decentralization (Ethereum’s foundational philosophy) could be compromised. Large nodes with high computational capacity may dominate, creating de facto centralization in validation distribution. The fundamental dilemma: improving scalability (through higher throughput and access) may require concentration in specialized nodes, leading to geographic and economic centralization.

Morpho vs. AAVE: Governance and Performance

Morpho outperforms AAVE, with only a 39% decline from peak versus a deeper drop for AAVE. DeFi researchers attribute this to governance structure: Morpho’s simple setup without conflicts among Labs, DAO, and core teams. AAVE, by contrast, often faces complex governance controversies.

This illustrates that in DeFi, centralized governance can enhance short-term market efficiency. But it also introduces new risks: decision-making concentrated among few players increases systemic vulnerability. It’s a dialectic: blockchain decentralization must be combined with some centralized coordination for efficiency, yet such centralization can erode the original decentralization ethos.

The Sixth Wave: AI Agents and New Infrastructure

AI Agent experiments on the Base ecosystem show new scenarios: DX Terminal Pro hit $4.5 million in volume in the first hour; Towns App enables AI Agents to bet or open positions in group chats. Developers see this as “native Agent applications”—machines automatically executing financial transactions.

In this paradigm, API providers may become the most central players. As AI Agents call infrastructure via APIs, the economy shifts from human-user interfaces to machine-to-machine mechanisms. This is a form of decentralization at the application layer (more independent Agents), but centralization at the infrastructure layer (API providers monopolize access). As before, decentralization in one layer does not eliminate centralization in another.

The Seventh Wave: Digital Asset Treasury and Market Transparency

Hyperliquid remains the only Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) project with realized profits—around $356 million—holding 17 million HYPE tokens and transparently managing assets via real-time NAV dashboards. This model is seen as a benchmark for future DATs.

Hyperliquid’s transparency exemplifies informational decentralization: instead of hiding operations behind closed doors, all data is publicly accessible. Yet, this also shows that true decentralization requires centralized infrastructure for transparency—established systems to track and report assets in real time.

Final Reflection: The Janus of Centralization and Decentralization

Looking across this spectrum—from AI security controversies to Agent experiments, from massive funding waves to banking integrations—a clear pattern emerges: the industry is not moving solely from centralization to decentralization but is instead discovering new forms of both.

AI capital centralization, regulatory power centralization, and infrastructure control remain dominant. Yet, decentralization also manifests at new layers: access decentralization via ETFs and banking, execution decentralization through AI Agents, and innovation decentralization via open-source protocols.

The real question is not whether decentralization will prevail but how society will navigate the tensegrity between these forces. Living within this tension—rather than trying to eliminate it—may be a fundamental characteristic of the coming technological era.