diff --git a/content/what-is-decentralization.md b/content/what-is-decentralization.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..40f452b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/what-is-decentralization.md
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
++++
+date = "2018-09-21T09:27:27-07:00"
+title = "What is Decentralization?"
+tags = ["decentralization"]
+draft = false
++++
+
+Decentralization is important because building systems that distribute power is
+important. Building systems that resist abuses of power is important.
+
+In it's simplest definition, decentralization is the degree to which an entity
+within the system can resist coercion and still function as part of the system.
+Now be careful, coercion doesn't mean force, it means negative incentives to
+align with an authority.
+
+Note how nothing in the above definition explicitly references the distribution
+or the ownership of entities.
+
+Nodes can be distributed across whole planet and can be operated by dozens of
+independent organizations and the system, as a whole, could still be centralized.
+
+A great example of the above is Email. Email clients are very diverse, the same
+with providers, however when it comes to decisions that impact the whole
+system, a handful of centralized actors (and in particular, Google) have a very
+large say in the outcome.
+
+And here we come the concept of Practical Centralization. The idea that even if
+a protocol is designed with autonomy in mind, the way that it has been
+deployed/implemented has resulted in uneven power distribution. See: email
+(gmail), ntp (google, canonical) etc.
+
+Practical centralization is a hard concept to grasp because it isn't obvious
+from reading a paper or protocol spec how adoption will play out. However, it is
+nevertheless something that has to be designed against.
+
+Hard coded defaults/trust anchors, centralized upgrade severs, user preference,
+proprietary features, spam, ddos prevention...so many things can practically
+cause [emergent centralization](https://fieldnotes.resistant.tech/defensive-decentralization/) and give a handful of people uneven control over the
+whole system (and it's future direction).
+
+We need to move beyond naive conceptualizations of decentralization (like the
+percentage of nodes owned by an entity), and instead, holistically, understand how trust
+and power are given, distributed and interact.
+
+As an example let's take my favorite decentralized protocol: Ricochet. Assuming
+the continued operation of the Tor network - ricochet users can continue
+communicating with other uses without any interference or assistance from the
+developers or anyone else.
+
+If the project shut down tomorrow, or updated the software to attempt to censor specific clients, those ricochet peers would still work.
+
+I also built on top of the ricochet protocol completely separate from the
+canonical spec. My code can still interoperate should I choose that. It can
+evolve. Ricochet is therefore decentralized at the Protocol, the
+Political, and the Practical.
+
+I kind of glanced over a big assumption there ("the continued operation of the
+Tor network") - many would see this as evidence that Ricochet is not
+a decentralized system because it relies on Tor, whose relay consensus is highly
+centralized around the distribution of the directory server list from the Tor
+network.
+
+Does that make Ricochet centralized? I don't believe so.
+
+I could argue that even with the existence of the directory server list that Tor
+is more decentralized than not. Anyone can spin up a relay. The existence of the
+centralized directory server list doesn't compromise the trust associated with
+Tor's main function (routing and anonymizing traffic).
+
+Even without that argument, I think it is worth pointing out that it is possible
+to build decentralized systems on top of centralized ones. In fact, right now
+it's the only option for many types of applications - IP addresses assignment is
+not a decentralized process, internet routing is a highly centralized operation,
+and going much further down the stack - we only have one planet.
+
+The important principle here is that to be considered decentralized, a system
+should not undermine the decentralization of the layers below it - and should work
+to distribute trust & power equitably to the layers above it.
+
+Decentralization is ultimately about distributing trust and power.
+