This thread explains a great centralized structure that funnels funds to those who will ‘manage’ that centralization by controlling information community members receive.
We (the community) can do everything you’re proposing through good communication and our existing government structure.
I doubt this (Lunc) community will hand over control to your ‘Executive Circle’. Your prop adds middlemen - the opposite of what Satoshi taught. This prop is counter-productive to the movement of decentralization and you calling it decentralization is a crime in the crypto-space.
I understand but satoshi couldn’t really make a true governance at Bitcoin foundation, they had to create themselves. The 100% decentralization is somewhat a myth and we urge to have something that actually works and bring more trust to the whole project. Having a public Foundation can make it.
@Kool_Aid_Crypto ~ I think those who want a say should have a say and with that ~ voters need to sort through and pull out the good stuff in those perspectives to design and then vote well so we construct well.
Data mining takes time and wisdom but thoughts that otherwise wouldn’t be shared come into the ‘community mind’ and strengthen us (the community). We don’t need circles controlling our community mind.
I really like You guys, but imo, replacing a politician with a new politician accomplishes nothing except the appearance of change. That’s why I ask you to support this concept, it is complete:
I am very impressed by this proposal and its intellectual value. I have listened to your proposals with a great attention, but there is too much politics in it. Please Guys come with us!
No sir, I just follow the rules but I like to see a clear framework. Thats my opinion, not everyone must have a say, that’s it. I’m in favor for example a founder structure as Ethereum do, Rebels should have a say because they are devs, top validators should have a say. The Foundation need a public face, outspoken to represent community interests in occasions.
The current state is no good. That’s it.
Sure ~ and in the future everyone who chooses to be a political figure will be one ~ and their ideas will determine their political pull.
Sorting through the data is the challenge. Artificial Intelligence will help us do that by identifying anomalies and then pass them onto humans. It’s the anomalies that change things and the only reason politicians exist is to change things (ideally for the better)!
Initially this proposal seemed a little too radical for me to be comfortable with it, however after listening to SaMn explain it more clearly in his chat with DJTrev, I now see enough merit in it to vote yes. Besides as SaMn explains in the chat, we can decide after 12 months to change to a more traditional organizational structure.
This is not a concept its a DAO. its is how a DAO works in effect, and it is close to how governance works on chain currently. Proposal 11002 is not about changing the current governance voting system but creating an actual structure for the blockchain, not some private entity wanting to control the community asset but a structure made for the community to safe guard the block chain.
again this idea you have is to reform the current governance process for the blockchain, this proposal is not about reforming the current governance, but, provide a structure for the blockchain.
But we need reform to be better by being fully decentralized and fair… Your proposal is also reform, just a different kind of form - an information controlling form.
so you prefer a private entity to control the chain and assets rather than a structure for the blockchain serving that purpose? the structure for the blockchain which is community centered compared to a private entity with no accountability i know which i would rather have, we need leadership, transparency and accountability which is all missing right now with the system we have.
That’s the difference… between thinking and executing a program encoded since childhood.
Only a fool doing the same thing over and over again expects different results.
@SaMm - Thanks for your commitment and your contribution but think with your heart. Politics - is the doom of humanity. Politicians want us to think they are indispensable. Otherwise they will lose their jobs.
Only a fool doing the same thing over and over again expects different results. Think with your heart my friend, it’s your compass.
DAO is bottom-up management, without intermediaries, using objective tools, e.g. blockchain. Without a bishop, without a prime minister and a government, simply - the community decides together.
Firstly thanks for putting together this proposal. With TR moving towards a contracting role, a governance structure is absolutely needed.
My thoughts:
Holacracy as a pre-established model should be fine in theory. The roles identified appear appropriate and logical. However the model schema is the easy part (not downplaying your efforts). Equally important as the model is the right people in positions. Given that we are introducing new governance with current initiatives already in play eg TR / TGF, ideally a proposal should explain how the model will integrate successfully with all current initiatives, or, explain how any potential disintegration risk resultant from the new governance is mitigated.
Therefore, I believe this proposal should have increased chances of success if it included the following:
Feedback from TR and whether they are happy to be contracted under such governance. This is not because TR are gatekeepers (they are not). Nor is it because I happen to be impressed with them. My rationale is partly because LUNC has limited resources and no other apparent core devs, and partly because TR has done an impressive job so far and therefore we should retain their services. We are not in a position like other L1’s with a treasury large enough to introduce new governance and fire all the devs if they are dissatisfied with new arrangements.
Whether anyone has been tentatively identified for a position and how they would be a good fit for role. Your proposal specifies the community needs to decide which is theoretically correct, however some tentative selections would provide more confidence to the LUNC community as a starting point and how those members intend to conduct governance duties.
Whether this new governance constitutes any risk to current major initiatives such as the Terra Grants Foundation e.g. for being unconstitutional or any other reason.
What the constitution will generally contain and whether this constitutes any risk to current major LUNC initiatives.
In summary, the common theme aforementioned is about quantifying risk to current efforts and LUNC. Personally I can’t quantify any risk, therefore I am uncertain about voting for this. With uncertainty, the community is not likely to pass a proposal.
The following is general feedback on other matters:
If prop 10983 passes it could be a great way to provide additional funding for governance.
I have perceived antagonism towards TR in the past from members associated with this proposal. Once again this just means more uncertainty for some voters or suggests covert motives.
Statements on twitter like “we shall see who wants transparency or not” is an antagonistic loaded premise implying all who are against this proposal don’t want transparency. It just means more uncertainty for voters.
Additionally it doesn’t reflect reality in which problems still arise and inefficiencies still exist despite any particular governance model (especially in cases of limited resources such as LUNC).
Just having a particular model isn’t the answer. It’s about people with aligned interests, personalities and working relationships. It is rare to hear someone say “I like AAPL stock because they have a board structure of xyx”. It is more commonly heard that someone likes a particular person on a board.
Another example is prop 10983, of which there appeared no apparent consultation with Binance. This generated much uncertainty imo, despite the fact the proposer was not theoretically obliged to engage Binance.
Anyway, thanks for the proposal. With TR contracting in future we definitely need a governance system be it this one or another one similar to other L1’s.
