| 12 Aug 2018 |
 @bridge:decred.org | [slack/bee] When new article on governance or from _certain_ authors is posted, a new game round is started. Players place chips on red or black (hype or real), then spin the wheel (read the thing) and finally the result (hype or real). | 21:18:53 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/bee] The key is betting after reading author and title, but not the body. Ending off-topic now, sorry. | 21:19:57 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] what i've seen is that it's vitalik with review/input from gun. gun is quite an engineer and a good researcher, despite my disagreements with him and his students over the utility of SGX etc | 21:25:48 |
| 13 Aug 2018 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/JKT]
In a resent post in #general Dave said "the crown is heavy" to emphasize how everyone is looking forward to Pi going live...I certainly believe that's true and I appreciate all the hard work you guys have done! That also brings up a question I have pondered...do we envision a voter approved executive level person (or team) to make smaller scale decisions. I know decentralization is the name of the game but there reasons why most governments and large companies have an excutive. Fast and decisive actions make an organization efficient and nimble. I just worry when everything goes through Pi there will be decision gaps that voters won't be able to fill. | 01:47:30 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] decentralization occurs a layer at a time | 01:48:35 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] however, that is not a very good justification for retaining the notion of an executive | 01:49:03 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] people are conditioned to make appeals to authority or look for a leader because that's all anyone knows at the moment | 01:50:39 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] the last US presidential election did an excellent job of making clear how absurd the idea is that some elected official is going really fix anything | 01:51:56 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] the whole system is fucked, no soulless face in a suit is going to change that | 01:52:27 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/JKT] I agree, but I was more thinking that voter don't want to vote on every minor decision that has to be made, but these decisions still have to be made. | 01:55:41 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] You have a point @JKT | 08:22:15 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] In the first stages of the project, the current team will keep working and function as "executives" | 08:22:58 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] If voters have problems with that they could propose and vote to change this, of course | 08:23:26 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] @JKT I don't think the plan is for _everything_ to go through Pi at a very small scale, but rather higher-level decisions, like for example about whether to start/stop some program. My understanding is that contributors will still have a good deal of autonomy, and that includes day to day decision-making. People are quite transparent about what they're doing already and a lot of decisions are discussed in the public channels. You can usually tell from that, or common sense, whether a decision is contentious. | 08:58:03 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/kozel] I agree with @Richard-Red on this, @JKT. I reckon high level consensus vote decisions are those big ones that most stakeholders should be interested in partaking in, however smaller, off-chain Politeia votes, which will probably be more numerous and pertain to other issues will ultimately be governed by those who have both the time and the will to dig deeper into them and keep themselves informed. For all others who have a stake, but not the time or the will there is the abstain option. | 09:46:05 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/ryanzim] Basically, I see a Pi proposal as a legislation that also designates a new executive branch for that particular legislation. e.g. We will build X feature and company Y will see that it gets done/make executive decisions on how to make feature X happen, within a budget of Z. | 16:14:53 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] And a timeframe of T 😉 | 16:57:22 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] https://medium.com/prysmeconomics/blockchain-governance-must-move-beyond-voting-56e1cc15dcd3 | 20:36:39 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] >Overall, we show that quadratic voting does no better than majority rule at coordinating the community on socially-beneficial hard forks.
As we discuss in our paper, an effective governance process to manage hard forks will need to also include coordination mechanisms, a defined policy proposal process (to determine what decisions get brought to a vote), well-defined information systems, and other elements.
While new voting systems such as quadratic voting have many applications both within and outside blockchain, their uniform application will not solve the governance challenges faced by blockchain today.
Moving forward, blockchain founders will need to think comprehensively about what constitutes governance and how these tools can be shaped to support their specific platform. | 20:37:45 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] (that's the conclusion, for those who don't click on links) | 20:38:19 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] not much of substance in that one, maybe intended to promote the recent paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3192208 | 21:09:39 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] Yep, the content is in their paper | 21:14:19 |
| 14 Aug 2018 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] there seems to be a lot of ppl who show up and say something along the lines of "blockchains are complex, governance is complex, so we have to do off-chain governance" | 02:02:57 |
 jrick | governance is complex, let's do off-governance governance | 02:16:24 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] I see a lot of people who seem to think that if you have on-chain governance, all of the off-chain aspects they're used to must disappear. | 09:41:09 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] maybe they got that impression from EOS, where the 21 Block producers and Dan do seem to mostly just sort things out amongst themselves and then let the community know what's happening after the fact | 09:43:56 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/bee] > As we discuss in our paper, an effective governance process to manage hard forks will need to also include coordination mechanisms, a defined policy proposal process (to determine what decisions get brought to a vote), well-defined information systems, and other elements.
That reads like something that not yet exists 😉 | 12:10:37 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/bee] Interesting group https://prysmgroup.io/ . It's a startup that helps other startups design governance systems.
> With a specialized focus, Prysm Group’s areas of expertise include community governance, consensus governance, foundational tokenomics, incentive design, and platform design. | 12:32:48 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/bee] Interesting group https://prysmgroup.io/ . It's a startup that helps other startups design governance systems.
> With a specialized focus, Prysm Group’s areas of expertise include community governance, consensus governance, foundational tokenomics, incentive design, and platform design. (edited) | 12:32:54 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/ryanzim] So, what successful thing have they built that gives them the right to be "experts" that can advise others? | 13:06:13 |
