The Representatives vs The Represented: Who should control project funding?

We ought to use crypto to shape the world, meaning that everything we do here is effectively an experiment to attain workable solutions for the flaws of our traditional system of governance, finance and business.

What blockchain has offered so far, still has great similarities to what we have within the traditional system. So the question is: how is it better if it is still similar?

The first thing we have to understand is that “being similar” doesn't mean “being the same”. At the same time, not entirely being the same doesn't guarantee that we don't end up in the same place or with the same results.

So the idea is generally to experiment then pick and choose what works and what doesn't. To do this, we have to extensively weigh the strengths and weaknesses of everything we build.

Experiment A: Token-based Governance

A lot of people have debated the viability of “stake-weighted” governance and I'd admit, most of the words said against it are true. For example, token-based governance is a richman game.

This is evident in proof of stake chains. I am yet to determine if it has as much influence on delegated proof of stake chains(as there are a few large ones) but I can say that there's similar outcomes to expect here.

But then again, if stake-weighted governance is so bad, what might be the solution?

A single token system?

Well, I've heard this concept a couple of times and I always have the same verdict: there's no motivation in having equal influence with everyone on a network when you could pretty much be offering and investing more and just because it creates a leveled control field doesn't mean it cannot be exploited.

Campaigns are still a thing and humans are by nature rather deceptive, if a man can lead 10s of people to mass suicide, I'm sure he could lead thousands to cast a vote.

In weighing both, I figured that a single token system just leads us back to the traditional governance system where we have the people voting in representatives, then when power is assumed, it becomes one constructive lie after another to stay in power and not deliver any of what was said in the manifesto.

So am I saying that having a flexible stake-weighted governance system is better?

Well, here's what I didn't explicitly mention before about stake-based governance:

One man can remain in power for a long time.

Reasons? Higher stake control!

Humans naturally are inclined to worship one who holds what is considered valuable in great amounts. So if an individual holds an influence of about 5% of the governance system, the decision the said individual makes will be followed by a couple below him, creating a system where he(one man) continues having his voice lead the trend of developments within the network or ecosystem.

Experiment B: Proposals

Proposals are an empowerment to the crypto community, a way of getting everyone involved in the development process of the network and control over where network wealth is allocated.

This is particularly where the topic of this post stems from.

Between the representatives and the representated, who should control project funding?

Let's get one thing straight: money makes the world go round and love keeps it relatively stable and worth being in.

So when we talk about governance and making the world a better place, we are effectively talking about enhancing the direction by which the wealth of nations flows.

With that being the case, who should control where funds get allocated?

I suppose it's very clear: everyone(the represented) , not the representatives(the few).

In the traditional system of governance, the representatives control the flow of wealth, they also control how much the people give to this pot through taxes, all of which should be things determined by everyone.

Look at blockchains for example, with proposals in the picture, validators, witnesses or miners do not control the flow of wealth, but every with a stake in the network does. Through the various stages of proposals from initiation, public discussions, voting and finality, everyone gets involved.

This gives the people(community) the right to influence the direction by which the network's wealth flows.

Experiment C: Reputation As A Currency

A not commonly discussed piece of the ecosystem - building a good reputation.

It is never easy and it never will be and when it comes to blockchain networks functioning on DPoS consensus mechanisms, reputation becomes paramount to attain great influence - almost as much as the largest stakeholders.

Fun-Fact? Transacting with the community based on one's reputation forces even the large accounts to opt-in to build a good name for themselves as that really just increases their influence and reduces the chances of the community going against them and forking away to a new chain.

All things considered, crypto and blockchain technology is building unique solutions to combat greed in the governance system and inequality in the finance and business network.

While it's all very experimental at these stages, it serves as building blocks to attain a network of scale for the future generations.

Posted Using InLeo Alpha