Who should be eligible to participate in governance?

#1

I’m copying over some of the excellent conversation we’ve had in the governance working group channel the past few days, for the sake of threaded/more structured conversation on this important question.

JoshAvenue

whoabuddy: Since ethan_jy and dant mentioned about token ownership and the ability to vote on the governance. One of the biggest challenges right now is, how do we get majority of our STX investors Coming in and join our governance discussion? Juliet mentioned about Evangelist who helped Blockstack but does not own as much as STX investors or possibly top app miners. Do we allow people with higher financial advantages to have more authority on votes over believers who has lesser STX when the new foundation starts?

At the current state, I believe there are 4 major audiences in our ecosystem. 1. PBC entity 2. STX Investor (Since we have a strict price discussion rule, we don’t really know this audience and their opinion on governance.) 3. Developers 4. Evangelists

Reference >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-CH_5il9aU&list=PLpNeGhwVBcha8itBSQlUoeMy_6EtTeoVd&index=10

Ethan_JY

Thanks for sharing, quite an insightful discussion.

Yea I was thinking about the topic on how can one determine who is eligible to participate in governance. While at the same time which body has the right to make such a judgement. Given that we want to Ensure all voices are represented equally, but at the same time every group of stakeholder has a different view on how Blockstack should eventually be, how can we set the line on who gets to participate. Like in the video you shared about on chain governance, I agree that one stx one vote will benefit the bigger players, but ultimately it’s also nearly impossible to get every single stakeholder to vote/participate in every governance related decision.

Would something along the line of smaller stakeholders get “tag along” to main stakeholders in terms of decision making. While in terms of trying to get everyone represented, would it be more efficient to have a silence = consent mechanism whereby if the stakeholder do not vote it qualifies as automatic consent. While at the same time stacks foundation provides a recourse mechanism, where if there’s an issue that minorities do not agree with. They can raise the issue and if there’s enough vote on it, it should be brought to the table for re-evaluation ?

Juliet

At the current state, I believe there are 4 major audiences in our ecosystem. 1. PBC entity 2. STX Investor (Since we have a strict price discussion rule, we don’t really know this audience and their opinion on governance.) 3. Developers 4. Evangelists

JoshAvenue What do you think about adding Users to the list?

Juliet

JoshAvenue I don’t agree that only STX holders should be able to participate in governance of the ecosystem. I understand skin in the game and the position of no STX no vote, but I believe there are other options that haven’t been discussed regarding voting. Bottom line, all stakeholders should be able to participate as equal members of the community.

dant

There are variations in what “participate” means. We still need to identify what areas of governance we’re concerned with. What is the scope of the Stacks Foundation? If we limit it to “blockchain” governance, then without some financial stake how do you prevent bad actors from having a say in how things move forward? At the most fundamental level, STX and/or BTC is required for blockchain participation. SIP-007 provides a mechanism for everyone to participate, but that is via STX. I would presume that protocol updates, forks, etc would follow this same paradigm. Blockchain operation, this part of governance, unapologetically excludes people without a stake in proper operation. Assuming we arent trying to re-write how SIP-007 works, the next layer up, in my mind involves block rewards, distribution, etc. How much will miners get? Thats already set out in the whitepaper. Changing that would require a protocol change. Again, we’re back to having a financial stake in proper operation. Should we create a dev fund for when “app mining” ends? Should we fund independent developers outside of PBC? Nobody has told me how the Stack Foundation will be funded? Out of mining rewards? Who gets a say in that? Or more pointedly, would we want people without some “Proof of Blockstack” to have a vote in how things get funded? Thats just opening up huge holes for vandals to walk through.

I am, admittedly, biased by how things work today with other successful blockchains and happy to learn about how we can increase participation, but my first concern would always be the security of the chain and its operation, not making people feel good. And I say that having virtually no real voice based on STX holdings.

Juliet

There are variations in what “participate” means. We still need to identify what areas of governance we’re concerned with. What is the scope of the Stacks Foundation? If we limit it to “blockchain” governance, then without some financial stake how do you prevent bad actors from having a say in how things move forward?

dant I definitely agree that there are variations in what participation means. But nothing so far limits the foundation to “blockchain” governance or Friedger - OpenIntents to overseeing App mining. All the questions you raise are important and deserve a more thorough and thoughtful discussion then we can give it here in Discord. I invite you both to join me in pursuing this topic in the Discourse forum.

2 Likes