Breaking the centralised choke point: Why IP addresses must be decentralised

Breaking the centralised choke point: Why IP addresses must be decentralised is profiled by BTW Media because public-source evidence links it to internet infrastructure, governance, operational dependencies, or market visibility.

• Lu Heng argues that the current centralised control of IP addresses and domain names poses structural risks to the global Internet.
• A decentralised model, where each network controls its own identifiers, enhances resilience without sacrificing stability.

“The Internet has been steadily moving toward decentralisation for decades. From infrastructure to applications, from blockchain to Web3, almost every layer is reducing single points of control. Yet one critical layer remains stubbornly centralised: names and numbers—domain names and IP addresses. This is not a philosophical issue but a structural risk. Any centralised choke point can be captured, politicised, or abused, and when that happens, the Internet fragments.”

——Lu Heng, CEO at Cloud Innovation, CEO at LARUS Ltd, Founder of LARUS Foundation.

The persistent centralisation of internet identifiers

Lu Heng, CEO of LARUS Limited and founder of the LARUS Foundation, highlights a critical vulnerability in the way the Internet’s identifiers — specifically domain names and IP addresses — are governed. While many layers of the modern Internet have embraced decentralisation through technologies such as blockchain and Web3, the mechanisms that allocate and register core identifiers remain firmly centralised under the oversight of Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).

Heng explains that this centralised regime, a legacy from the early days of the Internet when decentralised technologies did not exist, introduces a structural risk. If the institutions responsible for maintaining these registries act improperly, come under political influence, or become compromised, they can disrupt connectivity, undermine neutrality, and erode trust in the global network. This fragility is not theoretical; recent governance challenges at multiple registries underscore its reality.

Also Read: Data sovereignty’s practical reality: Why law matters more than localisation

Ownership, control, and structural risk

At the heart of Heng’s critique is the distinction between the commercial markets that have developed around IP addresses and the underlying system of ownership and control. He notes that markets for addresses already exist, but the governance structure leaves network operators subject to central authorities with limited remedies. A decentralised model, wherein each network securely controls its own registrations, would eliminate the single point of control that makes the system susceptible to abuse.

However, Heng also recognises the transitional necessity of existing RIRs. In the short term, these organisations must remain stable and neutral to ensure uniqueness and coordination of number resources, but they should not retain monopolistic power indefinitely.

Also Read: Portability of internet number resources: Why ICP-2 revision must guarantee mobility

Towards a resilient future internet

For Heng, decentralisation does not equate to chaos; instead, it provides resilience. In a decentralised framework, no single institution holds enough authority to threaten the integrity of the global Internet. This approach preserves stability while reducing systemic risk and aligns Internet governance with the broader trend toward distributed control. Given the Internet’s role as a global public utility, decentralising identifiers is, in his view, indispensable to keeping the network unified and robust for future generations.