12 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: The next phase for Donuts
Vitalik had a good post[1] explaining this. He argued against binding on-chain governance and said that signaling is more useful, because it doesn’t have the same cons. “It is very useful for coin voting to be one of several coordination institutions deciding whether or not a given change gets implemented. It is an imperfect and unrepresentative signal, but it is a Sybil-resistant one”.
1: https://vitalik.ca/general/2017/12/17/voting.html
This is the approach we mentioned in the post.
Comment by DCinvestor at 21/06/2019 at 21:35 UTC*
13 upvotes, 2 direct replies
All of this was known when Donuts were first proposed for governance and is not new information (Edit: the post referenced here from u/vbuterin is from December 2017). Was there something in particular in the execution of this experiment which made you or u/carlslarson change your mind on the suitability of Donuts for governance?
And to confirm, does this declaration from you remove governance authority from Donuts.
It is a yes or no question.
Comment by [deleted] at 22/06/2019 at 04:47 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
An agent of a centralized system invoking VB to defend acting against decentralization. This is incredibly offensive, but, hardly surprising.
/u/carlslarson if there was ever a time to gracefully bow out of this project...