On (de)centralization and (defining) latency: First, there are two types of centralization: physical vs. logical. Examples: X(.com) is logically centralized, yet logically decentralized. A PoS network can be logically decentralized yet physically centralized (like Hyperliquid whose validators are predominantly in or close to Tokyo, Japan). What's the relationship between centralization and latency? The short answer is that *logical* centralization can always provide (potentially) lower latency of many different types, at the expense of censorship resistance. How exactly do we define latency more accurately? This is my framework: to specify latency we need three parameters: (1) start of measurement, (2) end of measurement, and (3) guarantee provided. For example, the start of measurement could be when a user sends out a transaction to a node or it could be when a sequencer has received that transaction. Ultimately, the guarantees for system participants and users are the most important. Here are some latency that are of interest: 1. Inclusion confirmation latency: the start is when a user sends out the transaction, end is when a user receives a confirmation that the transaction will be included with some guarantee. 2. End-to-end execution latency: the start is when a user sends out the transaction, the end is when the user receives the full transaction effect (e.g. execution price of a defi market swap). 3. End-to-end execution & finality latency: like 2 above, but the end is measured when transaction is also finalized by consensus. Again, all of these latency measure could be lower for logically centralized but physically decentralized systems, at loss of censorship resistance (and other properties that come with decentralization).