Dilemma: A situation in which a person must choose between two difficult or undesirable options from Greek di-(meaning two) and lemma-(proposition).
A moral dilemma: A lifeboat can hold only so many people and the ship is sinking. Who gets on the lifeboat?
Another classic example of a dilemma is the trolley problem. A runaway trolley is headed towards five people tied to the tracks. You have the option to pull a lever, diverting the trolley to another track where only one person is tied. While saving five lives is the logical choice, intentionally causing the death of one person raises a difficult ethical question.
Trilemma: A situation where you are faced with three competing options, but can only satisfy maximum two at a time, or choosing any one means compromising on the other two.
Let’s quickly go through some famous trilemmas.
- The monetary trilemma or also known as the impossible trinity, is an economic principle stating that it is impossible for a country to achieve
- Free capital movement
- A fixed exchange rate
- An independent monetary policy
This trilemma is at the heart of how countries choose to integrate into the global financial markets. If a country wants a fixed exchange rate and free capital movement, it must give up control of its own monetary policy (e.g., Hong Kong). If a country wants monetary independence and free capital movement, it must allow its exchange rate to float (e.g., the U.S.). If a country wants a fixed exchange rate and monetary independence, it must implement capital controls (e.g., China and India). No country can have it all.
China wants to have more exports and a low exchange rate with dollar. But the free markets will make the Chinese yuan stronger since they have excess exports so the government has to intervene and peg conversion rates. They must purposely make their valuable currency less valuable to keep the exports up. They allow US to buy stuff at a cheaper rate.
- The Political Trilemma
- National Sovereignty
- Democratic politics
- Hyper globalization
This proposal by economist Dani Rodrik, is a powerful framework that explains the tensions between globalization, democracy, and national sovereignty among nations. Hyper-globalization means removing barriers to trade, capital, and labor across borders. Democratic politics refers to policies that are shaped through voting, political representation, and accountability to citizens. National sovereignty is the nation-state retaining full control over laws, regulations, and domestic policy decisions.
If a nation prioritizes democracy and globalization decision making shifts to supranational institutions like IMF and WTO, the nations lose autonomy like European Union, where member states have to conform to rules not shaped by national voters. Eurozone crisis and Brexit are all real world applications for this. This trilemma explains the rise of populism and nationalism.
- The Blockchain Trilemma
- Decentralization
- Scalability
- Security
Blockchain networks like Bitcoin must make trade-offs between these features. Solving this trilemma is one of crypto’s biggest technical challenges. It was coined by Vitalik Buterin. Bitcoin is fully decentralized and secure but it is not scalable to incorporate more transactions per block. If you increase block size to add more transactions per block, the size of the database will increase and hence more nodes will not be participants as full nodes which will in turn reduce decentralization. Solana blockchain fixes the scalability issue but it is not decentralized or secure enough as the bitcoin blockchain and it has constant outages compared to the Bitcoin blockchain.
- Project Management Trilemma or Iron Triangle
- Fast
- Cheap
- Good Quality
The Iron Triangle concept became widely popular through the work of Dr. Martin Barnes, who first articulated the idea in the 1960s. The project management triangle, also known as the iron triangle, consists of constraints that are considered “iron” because changing one inevitably affects the others. For a software team, this means that teams start a project by defining product requirements to determine a project’s scope (a list of work items).
The resources and schedule are variable and are estimated depending on the fixed scope. The purpose of the project triangle is to help product teams make informed trade-offs that align with business goals. For instance, if the scope is fixed and the team realizes mid-project that they’re unlikely to meet the release date, they have two main levers: 1) adjust the timeline by pushing the release date, or 2) increase resources by adding more team members, which raises costs.
Fast + Cheap = Low Quality: Rushed work with limited resources typically results in subpar outcomes.
Fast + Good = Expensive: High-quality work delivered quickly requires more people or expensive tools.
Cheap + Good = Slow: Quality on a tight budget means extended timelines, minimal workforce.
- The Database Trilemma – CAP Theorem
The CAP Theorem, proposed by computer scientist Eric Brewer in 2000, outlines a fundamental trade-off in distributed database systems. It states that such systems can only guarantee two out of the following three properties at any given time:
a. Consistency – Every user sees the same data at the same time, no matter which node they access.
b. Availability – Every request receives a response, regardless of the state of any individual node.
c. Partition Tolerance – The system continues to function even if there are network failures or communication breakdowns between nodes.
In practice, all distributed systems must be partition tolerant, as network issues are inevitable. That leaves developers with a critical choice between Consistency and Availability. Consider platforms like Facebook or Instagram. These systems prioritize Availability and Partition Tolerance to ensure a fast and seamless user experience. If you like a photo, your action is registered immediately, even if the system hasn’t yet synchronized that data across all nodes. As a result, two users might briefly see different like counts—but the system eventually becomes consistent. This approach favors speed over perfect accuracy in the moment.
By contrast, systems like banking applications prioritize Consistency and Partition Tolerance. It’s unacceptable for a customer to see different account balances at different times. Accuracy takes precedence, even if that means temporarily sacrificing availability during network disruptions. The CAP Theorem reminds us that trade-offs are inevitable in distributed computing. The right combination depends on the system’s purpose and the expectations of its users.
- Life’s Harmony Trilemma
Life may be conceptualized as a three-legged stool, with each leg representing a fundamental domain of human fulfillment:
a. Family, Friends, and Community – the Social leg
b. Health, Spiritual Well-being, and Ego – the Personal leg
c. Career, Wealth, and Material Achievement – the Status leg
From observation and experience, I have come to the conclusion that it is evident that maximizing all three areas simultaneously is an exceedingly rare, if not an impossible endeavor. It will be like observing a black swan. At most, individuals can excel in two areas, often at the expense of the third. This constraint exists because we are bound by time—a finite resource of only 24 hours in each day. Even striving to maintain two legs at the highest level is a considerable challenge.
Consider those who prioritize the Social leg—nurturing close relationships, supporting family, and contributing to their communities. While this offers profound emotional satisfaction and connection, it often limits the time and focus available to aggressively pursue career goals or accumulate substantial wealth. Genuine internal happiness, many find, is rooted in selfless giving—offering time, resources, or support without expecting anything in return. The moment we attach expectations to generosity, we risk emotional disillusionment. Lasting fulfillment stems from acts of kindness offered freely.
In contrast, those who prioritize the Status leg—high-level career achievement and wealth accumulation—often do so at great personal and relational cost. Prominent figures such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Donald Trump have seen aspects of their personal lives play out in the public eye, with strained relationships and legal disputes suggesting the toll their ambitions have taken.
Similarly, individuals who pour themselves into family life—attending children’s events, caring for elderly parents, and engaging in their communities—seldom have the capacity to simultaneously manage billion-dollar enterprises. And in those rare instances where individuals seem to balance professional success and meaningful relationships, it is often their physical or emotional health that is compromised, diminishing their ability to enjoy the life they’ve built.
This trade-off is not incidental; it appears to be a natural law—or perhaps a reflection of divine design. Just as a table becomes unstable when one leg grows disproportionately taller than the others, life too becomes imbalanced when one domain overwhelms the rest. The contents placed on such a table—symbolizing life’s priorities and joys—are more likely to topple and be lost.
The most stable and harmonious lives often belong to those who keep all three legs relatively modest in height and equal. These individuals may not achieve widespread fame or extraordinary wealth, but they most likely will experience a quiet contentment. They maintain health, nurture relationships, engage in meaningful work, and embrace the simplicity of life.
The pressing question, then, is this:
Which legs would you choose to prioritize?
Would you pursue extraordinary professional success, knowing it may cost you your health and relationships? Would you opt for deep spiritual fulfillment and peace, but forgo wealth or companionship? Or might you choose a balanced, less glamorous life—overlooked by society, but deeply satisfying on your own terms?
For myself, I know the answer.
I would want all three legs at maximum height or a very tall table. If I could only choose one, it would be the Social leg—a life rich in love and community. If given the option of two, I would add the Personal leg—valuing inner well-being alongside connection.
After all, what value does wealth hold if one lacks the health to enjoy it, or the people to share it with?
The longest-running study on happiness, conducted by Harvard University, affirms this perspective: individuals who report the highest levels of satisfaction and longevity are those with strong, supportive relationships. It is the strength of the Social leg that sustains us—perhaps more than any other.
Nithin Eapen is a technologist and entrepreneur with a deep passion for finance, cryptocurrencies, prediction markets and technology. You can write to him at neapen@gmail.com
Disclaimer – The website managers, its employee(s), and contributors/writers/authors of articles have or may have an outstanding buy or sell position or holding in the securities, options on securities or other related investments of issuers and/or companies discussed therein. The content of the articles and the interpretation of data are solely the personal views of the contributors/ writers/authors. Investors must make their own investment decisions based on their specific objectives, resources and only after consulting such independent advisors as may be necessary.