Right now it’s murmured that “decentralized governance” slows down decision-making.
What if that’s a temporary truth?
Perhaps we haven’t standardized the right forms of “distributed governance” that accelerate group decision-making through flexible consensus rules.
Watching some of the boutique investment DAOs — which can out execute traditional investment firms due to lightweight gov structures 👀 — this distributed & accelerated decision-making is already possible in some contexts.
While “fair distribution” is a normative judgment, it flows from what we see as a consensus belief within crypto: creating level playing-fields where everyone has a chance at financial sovereignty.
If a small group of insiders regularly take ~half of the fully-diluted upside (which is common), we’re seriously kneecapping the redistributive effects of this technology in order to make a handful of people obscenely rich.
For a while, skeptics asked what $DCR's raison d'être was.
Sure, @placeholdervc had put out that "Decred’s killer feature is good governance, and with good governance, you can have any feature you want," but what feature(s) was @decredproject providing the world?
IMO the turning point for people realizing @decredproject's ability to bring valuable services to the world was #DCRDEX, which has seen rapid uptake as a privacy-preserving, hard-money #DEX: dex.decred.org