/1 @zeroknowledgefm podcast summary on the on-chain vs off-chain governance debate between @gavofyork and @VladZamfir. zeroknowledge.fm/52
/2 Governance defines the decision-making process within a system, including mechanisms that connect individuals to come together and act as a group. This includes:
• decisions to recover from system failure;
• collective decision making;
• fork prevention.
• decisions to recover from system failure;
• collective decision making;
• fork prevention.
/2.1 Governance does not have to be comprised of one single mechanism; it can be the result of several processes.
/3 Differing views: @gavofyork believes that because human interactions are comprised of processes, machines can resemble the same mechanisms. E.g. market dynamics may ultimately lead to the right outcome.
/3.1 @VladZamfir: If machines or individuals are given the right to make decisions over the collective, then we ultimately trust those to make the right choices. Problem: No process can check that other processes are good.
/4 Voting is not equivalent to rough consensus. Stakeholders, who vote no, are likely not represented in the governance outcome. Even if the majority agrees with the outcome, there will be a group who potentially leaves the system.
/5 If individuals do not agree with the voting outcome (≠unanimous voting), the result of the vote should not be executed. This would result in a veto right for individuals. Users, whose interests are not aligned with the network, can influence decision making.
/6 Unanimous voting: @VladZamfir "It is safe but not practical"; @gavofyork "Keeping the network together is overrated", however, there have to be clear game-theoretic mechanisms that increase the likelihood that decisions represent a sufficient group in the network.
/6.1 If the decisions taken in the network are not legitimate, participants should be able to change the process through political mechanisms.
/7 Meet-space politics cannot and should not be replaced by on-chain governance, and the reliance on smart contracts executed governance processes should be minimised.
/8 Governance stakeholders can be anyone who is impacted by its processes.
Not all stakeholders
• should be granted veto rights;
• are going to be satisfied with the outcome.
Not all stakeholders
• should be granted veto rights;
• are going to be satisfied with the outcome.
/8.1 @gavofyork to allow for coin-voting: Capital can be redistributed to users, who have been proven useful in the system. (Views on what is defined as useful will probably differ depending on the group asked.)
/8.2. @VladZamfir: Coin holders are not particularly special in comparison to other stakeholders. People who participate in day-to-day governance are potentially better informed than others.
/9 Governance is influenced by a variety of social aspects.
• People tend to make different decisions if they are not held accountable;
• The average stakeholder is likely not interested in the details of governance.
• People tend to make different decisions if they are not held accountable;
• The average stakeholder is likely not interested in the details of governance.
/9.1 Views diverged whether or not governance decisions should be transparent or not. Ultimately, stakeholders want 'representatives' to act in accordance with their own views.
