Breaking the myths of decentralized and permissioned blockchain networks
In the blockchain world, there’s a widespread belief that "permissionless" automatically equates to decentralization, while "permissioned" implies centralization. This assumption, while convenient, oversimplifies the complex reality of how different blockchain ecosystems operate. In this post, we’ll explore why this binary view is flawed and how permissioned systems can actually foster true decentralization.
Jan 21, 2025

The Permissionless Fallacy
Permissionless blockchains are often seen as the gold standard for decentralization. The idea is that anyone can participate in the network without needing approval, making it more democratic and resistant to control by any single entity. However, the reality is more nuanced.
Take Layer-2 (L2) networks as an example. L2s are designed to scale transactions by processing them from the main blockchain (Layer-1). While these systems are often marketed as permissionless, the truth is that most of the transaction volume flows through centralized, permissioned sequencers controlled by the L2 project.
What are Sequencers? Sequencers are responsible for ordering and batching transactions before they are committed to the Layer-1 blockchain. In most L2 networks, the control over these sequencers is centralized, meaning the L2 project can decide who operates them. This gives the controlling entity significant power over the network, including the ability to censor transactions, reorder them for profit (through Miner Extractable Value or MEV), or even halt the network entirely. This centralization of control contradicts the very idea of decentralization that permissionless systems are supposed to uphold.
The Decentralization Potential of Permissioned Systems
Now let’s address the other assumption. Permissioned ecosystems are often dismissed as centralized because participation is controlled. However, when designed thoughtfully, permissioned systems can actually promote decentralization, especially in critical areas like RPC (Remote Procedure Call) access and bridge access.
Decentralizing RPC Access RPCs are essential for interacting with the blockchain, as they allow users and developer applications to read and write data to the network. In many so-called decentralized networks, RPC access is still controlled by a few centralized providers, creating potential single points of failure.
In a permissioned system, however, RPC access can be distributed among a network of validators using Multi-Party Computation (MPC) technology and Multi-Signature (Multi-Sig). MPC allows multiple parties to perform computations on data without revealing it to each other, ensuring both security and privacy. By distributing RPC access through MPC & Multi-Sig among a diverse set of validators or trusted, non-related actors, the system can eliminate centralized control over this critical function, promoting real decentralization.
Decentralizing Bridge Access Bridges enable assets and data to move between different blockchains, making them a crucial part of blockchain ecosystems. In permissionless systems, bridges are often controlled by a single entity, which can introduce significant risks if that entity is compromised.
Permissioned systems can use MPC and Multi-Sig to decentralize bridge access as well. By distributing control over the bridge among a network of validators, no single party can control the flow of assets across the bridge. This not only enhances security but also aligns with the principles of decentralization, spreading control across multiple independent entities.
Haven1: Leveraging Permissioned Technology for Decentralization
At Haven1, we have developed a permissioned and strategically decentralized network to deliver on our vision of a ‘safe haven’ blockchain that can facilitate DeFi, real world asset (RWA) tokenization and other services without the high risk of hacks, rugs and other malicious activity that plagues the development of crypto. Our community is secure in the knowledge that smart contract code is regularly audited, and that attracts institutions and users that developers want to build for.
In order to enable that, we have pioneered permissioned technology to create a truly decentralized ecosystem. Unlike other permissionless networks that may centralize control over key functions, Haven1 uses a combination of public, permissioned technology and proprietary Multi-Sig autonomous consensus mechanisms to ensure that no single entity can control the network.
Secure and Decentralized RPCs Haven1’s permissioned RPCs are designed to meet strict network security standards. Each RPC is enforced with verified counterparties through the hPassport (which includes KYC and KYB checks), mandated smart contract audits, and reviews before deployment. Additionally, Haven1 employs Network Guardians for continuous threat and anomaly detection, with the capability to freeze transactions for additional user input through two-factor authentication. This ensures that users have complete control and protection over their assets without the added counterparty risk associated with account abstraction solutions.
Validator-Distributed Bridge and Network Access Beyond the permissioned RPCs, Haven1 pioneers a truly decentralized approach to bridge and network access. Using proprietary Multi-Sig consensus technology, all validators must reach consensus for funds to move in and out of the network through the bridge. This ensures that Haven1 has zero control, nor does any single entity.
Addressing Concerns About Validator Numbers
You might be wondering why Haven1 chose seven validators instead of a larger number. Isn’t that centralized? The short answer is no, and here’s why.
Defining Decentralization: According to the H.R.4763 bill—an act passed by US Congress to regulate digital assets—decentralization is defined as “no person has unilateral authority to control the blockchain or its usage, and no issuer or affiliated person has control of 20% or more of the digital asset or the voting power of the digital asset.” With seven validators decentralizing the network access, this ensures that control is (at a minimum) 1/7 or ~14%, which is materially under the 20% threshold.
Haven1’s structure, therefore, adheres to a robust definition of decentralization, ensuring that no single entity can dominate the network.
For more details on how Haven1's Validator Partner Council contributes to this decentralized model, check out our blog post, "The Vital Role of the Validator Partner Council on Haven1."
Conclusion: Rethinking Decentralization
The debate between permissioned and permissionless systems is more complex than it first appears. While permissionless systems are often associated with decentralization, the reality is that many rely on centralized mechanisms for critical functions. Conversely, permissioned systems, when thoughtfully designed, can decentralize crucial aspects of the network, such as RPC and bridge access, through advanced, distributed controls that require multiple parties to review and approve transactions in an efficient manner.
Ultimately, decentralization is not just about whether a system is permissioned or permissionless; it’s about how control and authority are distributed across the network. We believe that Haven1 exemplifies this approach, showing that permissioned technology can be a powerful tool for achieving real decentralization in blockchain ecosystems.