Discussions about blockchain infrastructure often linger at a high level—talking about concepts, architecture, technical superiority, and resilience. All of these are important. But when these ideas are actually implemented, when they reach a protocol’s meeting room or the decision-maker who has to give the final approval, the tone shifts dramatically.

Practical issues come to the surface: Do I need to use it? Do I dare to use it? Can I integrate it into key business processes?

At this point, the person in charge faces more than just a technical analysis report. They need to align an entire ecosystem—engineering teams, partners, auditors, investors, the community, and sometimes even regulatory authorities’ inquiries. Plus, there’s the very real internal pressure: What if I choose wrong? Who’s responsible if the project goes wrong? How do I explain if funds are lost? In the end, all these issues fall on the person making the final decision.

Therefore, when choosing infrastructure, the first thing that often comes to mind for the decision-maker isn’t technical scoring but **explanation cost**.

What is explanation cost? It’s whether you can clearly communicate this decision. Clearly explain why it was chosen. Clearly outline the evidence it relies on. Clarify its boundaries and risks. Explain how to handle disputes if they arise. Clarify how responsibilities are divided. Most importantly, demonstrate that the decision wasn’t made impulsively.

Many new proposals get stuck at this step—not because they lack technical excellence, but because they are too difficult for non-technical roles to understand and hard for people with different interests to agree upon.

You’ll find that a protocol’s leader not only needs to persuade engineers but also needs to convince many people who don’t write code. These individuals don’t care about technical details; they only care about one thing: If something goes wrong, can you explain it? Can you prove I wasn’t reckless at the time? Can you demonstrate that my decision-making process was sufficiently cautious?

This is the real reason why many technically superior solutions end up shelved.