While some have called Google Cloud Universal Ledger the “XRP Killer,” critics remain skeptical, claiming that centralized control by Google is against the core principles of decentralization.
Discussions on centralization and decentralization
A private, authorized blockchain, Google Cloud Universal Ledger (GCUL) is positioned as a secure platform for managing the complete lifecycle of digital assets. Built on the “partnership model,” GCUL is designed to complement existing business frameworks rather than competing. The platform, targeted at financial institutions, promises great benefits to both service providers and their clients.
Some call Gcul the “XRP Killer,” but their debut has led to some in the industry becoming skeptical. Critics argue that no matter how big or high a platform is, if it is owned or managed by a single entity, it cannot be considered truly decentralized.
However, we consider Google's technical expertise and financial strength to be important advantages. They suggest that niche-focused projects might find it more efficient to launch on GCUL rather than building blockchain from scratch. This view is reflected by Luigi D'Onorio Demeo, Chief Strategy Officer at AVA Labs.
“As the market matures and demand increases, most companies are not willing to build a chain from scratch and instead choose stacks such as an avalanche.
That perspective is challenged by those who reject the concept that permitted systems are recognized as blockchain. Yann Régis-Gianas, Core Engineering Director at Nomadic Labs, argues that while Google could succeed in attracting partners to GCUL, its lack of decentralization means it works more like a database than a blockchain.
COTI CEO Shahaf Bar-Geffen shares this sentiment and claims that blockchain cannot be made public regardless of its efficiency.
“Although GCUL is positioned as Layer 1, its private and permitted nature is managed solely by Google, it omits significantly from the spirit of public chains like Ethereum. A centrally controlled chain like GCUL may increase the efficiency of certain institutional use cases, but does not inherit the benefits of being completely secretive and “untrusted.”
Is Gcul “reliable neutral?”
GCUL reportedly described it as a “reliable neutral” platform by one of its Google Executives at its launch.
In a written comment to Bitcoin.com News, Bar-Geffen claims Widmann's neutrality is “intriguing,” but questioned its feasibility. He pointed out that it is difficult to achieve true neutrality in a system where Google controls node participation and data can flow. Even if Google pursues fairness through audits and standards, Bar-Geffen warns that corporate interests could still affect decisions. He added that centralized control could lead to unilateral downtime or chain rollbacks.
One of the key selling points of GCUL is its potential to address the fragmentation that plagues digital finance. However, critics argue that by creating a closed ecosystem limited to Google's partners, it could potentially deepen fragmentation instead. Régis-Gianas sees this as an extension of Google's long-standing strategy to build a “walled garden.”
“The true promise of blockchain is complexity and interoperability. Every new walled garden pushes us further from that goal,” claims Regis Guianas.
Bar-Geffen agrees, suggesting that the closed ecosystem around GCUL is likely to result given its permitted structure and Google's history in tech.
“This fragmentation undermines the central purpose of Web3 of global interoperability, which seamlessly flows assets and data flows across a gatekeeperless chain, but there are plans to connect to the broader Web3 ecosystem for liquidity,” he adds.
