Community Trust ScoreVerified
Vitalik Buterin expressed that decentralized governance is necessary, but in its current form, coin voting governance has many acknowledged and unacknowledged dangers. Therefore, augmenting or moving beyond coin voting is a key part of the solution.
A lot of discussions are happening over Buterin’s content on: “Moving Beyond Coin Voting Governance.”
Reader response: Governance should be in the hands of the people. That’s talking about decentralization. Centralization is not in the interest of the people any day.
If a terrible decision happens, those who supported it suffer no more than those who opposed it. Indeed, skin in the game is the solution. That’s what I like about Polkadot and Kusama governance. The more you lock your vote, the more you “suffer” from the results.
I’m not sure if it’s possible to prove credible neutrality without some sort of provable stake/skin in the game. Would introduce too many attack vectors. A possible solution for the oligarch problem would be a whitelisted wallet with a pseudo anon KYC component.
I agree with the whole article, and solution 2 seems very interesting, but I am missing one thing: anonymity. By switching to Proof of Personhood systems, the identity and political preferences become public unless zk-KnowYourVoter or zk-voting. And this is dangerous.
To manage true decentralization in the management of decentralized and fundamental finance: The capita vote, in company law, consists of the rule according to which each shareholder holds a single vote regardless of the number of shares held or represented.
And that’s why I and our Project Catalyst team on Cardano wake up every day to make on-chain governance a reality and workable solution. Governance is absolutely a critical point in the future of any blockchain-seeking severe ability to stay relevant. Glad to see this recognized.
It is decentralized like how? Who will protect the inexperienced users who fall for the approval switch that this decentralized governance over an ETH contract that goes crazy because no centralized group is looked over any of the contracts over which foundations are crumbling?
If it’s Decentralized governance, that’s the definition of a website that isn’t in control of anyone, and that site is rare, in history, just only one exists. You can’t buy it; you can only be a user
Was it BTC where miners would set an indicator of their vote / for or against a proposal – we should value those who secure a network by running nodes. If each block producing node was 1 vote regardless of the weight – it seems like a fair chance to analyze the desire of the ops.
