Infrastructure Fork: Chains of Acceleration vs Chains of Capture
Ethereum (and Ethereum-aligned ecosystems)
Ethereum is not pure. It has issues—MEV, L2 centralization vectors, rollup sequencer politics. But structurally, it is still designed as a general-purpose substrate for peer agency.
Core affordances: permissionless composability, credibly neutral execution, modular stack.
The Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) is a chaotic neutral commons: fragile, congested, expensive—but open. You don’t have to ask.
d/acc possibility lives here: where any actor can fork, compose, interoperate. Vitalik’s ideological footprint matters—his writing still centers credible neutrality, minimum viable centralization, anti-authoritarian recursion.
This is not utopia. It’s contested ground. But it is ground.

Solana / BNB / Base
These are not “faster” or “cheaper” Ethereum variants. They are ideological inverses.
Solana: Performance-maximalism at the cost of validator diversity, systemic auditability, and peer sovereignty. It's a speed-run to platform lock-in. Solana wants users, not peers.
BNB: A fork of Ethereum designed specifically to recapture the decentralization meme and pipe it into an empire-state (Binance). Governance? Theater. Validators? Curated. Tokens? Extractive.
Base: Coinbase’s L2, built on OP stack. Nominally open, practically corporate. “Onchain” is the branding layer; the control plane is centralized custody. It’s a closed recursion dressed in mod dev language.
These are chains not of exit, but of enclosure.

Decentralization as Affordance vs Simulation
The split is not EVM vs non-EVM. It’s architectures of permission vs architectures of simulation.
Chains that enable d/acc design for open recursion: you can fork them, exit them, build novel coordination logics atop them.
Chains that simulate Web3 optimize for user acquisition, brand cohesion, narrative control. They are web2.5 with RPC endpoints.
They are hostile to exit. Hostile to ambiguity. Hostile to peers.

LARP Infrastructure
These chains replicate state logic in crypto drag.
Validators become governors. Custodians become kings. Code is not law—it’s selectively enforced mythology.
Public goods become content marketing. “Community” becomes captive liquidity.
LARP chains accelerate, yes—but only towards platform feudalism, tokenized surveillance, and corporate-administered pseudo-sovereignty.

d/acc Criteria Checklist (none of which these chains meet):
Permissionless forking
Open validator set
Governance mechanisms that can be subverted by users
Credible neutrality at protocol layer
Minimal dependency on centralized custody
Financial infrastructure that enables exit, not lock-in
Semantic affordances for composability and coordination beyond speculation
None of this is present in Solana. None in BNB. Base never even pretended.

Conclusion
The fork already happened.

You either build for open agency—or you build closed systems that posture as freedom. Most “Web3” chains chose the latter. Ethereum remains contested space—but it’s still space you can stand on, exit from, or rewrite.

The rest are not platforms. They’re prisons with better UX.

Let me know if you want a visual mapping of this. Or the ledger of who’s faking what.