However, I found the most striking outcome on page 41, when processing the answers to the questions about blockchain threats. According to the respondents, “governments have little incentive to propose such a transparent, non-mutable and secure technology as a solution; in addition, it is also crucial to understand that the foundations of this technology are based on the principle of decentralization. If decentralization and openness are not preferred, then of course these are never prerequisites for a glorious technological future.”
It is good to explain the aspect of decentralization in relation to blockchain. This is what is also called a distributed ledger, a shared ledger. This means that there are exact copies in all kinds of places. With public blockchains it is not possible to shield the entire content, it is even the intention that everyone can check whether the blocks contain the correct content (immutability). Incidentally, the transactions themselves can of course be encrypted.
Questions that occurred to me were: does this also apply to the Netherlands? What would a government lose from transparency through decentralization? And isn't decentralization the ultimate form of the Wet Openheid Overheid (previously known as the WOB)? Then I thought: no, that cannot apply to the Netherlands. Don't we have an open and transparent government? Surely there can be nothing against decentralization of data?
The opposite of transparent?
However, in a background article by Utrecht University, public administration expert Stephan Grimelikhuijsen states: “Transparency is often less good for trust in political or otherwise sensitive subjects. The less political an organization is, the more trust you create by coming out with transparency.” This article has taught me that there must be temporary non-transparency in decision-making processes in order to be able to freely discuss the options and that disclosure afterwards does help in trust.