Crypto Governance

[diffract]

has anyone actually tried to dabble in the governance of some PoS chains?
i find it a total shit show, and i'm slowly thinking it might be a buzzword to get you to buy in. here are some of my issues:

1. people who write proposals and people who vote are only the ones who know english. that means non-english speakers are excluded from deciding the future of a project.

2. some proposals are badly written and lack clarity or data. example: there was a proposal on Juno to hold lots of money from the treasury and fund developers with it who migrated from Luna after the Luna collapse. no mention of who these devs are, how many there are, what projects they'll be working on. yet everyone voted yes because it sounded good.

3. someone who doesn't want to be involved in governance and just liked the principles of the crypto project has to accept the fact that the project might be totally different in about 2 years after some proposal he/she doesn't agree with. This makes people micro-manage their money. Not everyone got the time or energy for that, especially if they're invested in more than one crypto and need to follow and read proposals for each crypto.

4. voters need to pay a fee to be able to vote. this means early adopters decide the rules for late adopters who are just observing the space before they get in. that's not inclusive/universal.

ultimately, humans are flawed and a monetary system with governance relies on humans. whereas something like bitcoin has governance that doesn't open the doors to random people to vote on proposal they might not even be bothered to read. also, participants have no idea how much power they vs. the devs have. remember how Solend bypassed the whole governance system to protect a whale from liquidation? does anyone have a case for governance?

[dothebeats]

I usually consider the concepts that they are introducing on the altcoin markets as buzzwords until they can prove that this is not a marketing plan that only works on paper and not in practice.

1. people who write proposals and people who vote are only the ones who know english. that means non-english speakers are excluded from deciding the future of a project.

This is a red flag already. If the community doesn't have any dedicated translators and representatives before a vote and proposal can be made, it's 100% always going to be in favor of the majority bloc that wants to enforce their own version of the project without considering the inputs of others. They can easily collaborate and 'gatekeep' people from what's really being proposed and what is being made.

2. some proposals are badly written and lack clarity or data. example: there was a proposal on Juno to hold lots of money from the treasury and fund developers with it who migrated from Luna after the Luna collapse. no mention of who these devs are, how many there are, what projects they'll be working on. yet everyone voted yes because it sounded good.

This is what I don't understand from people. They really need to read intently on whatever someone is offering them because it might be a ploy to siphon them off their money. If there isn't any single person opposing dodgy proposals then just get the hell out of there.

I think at this point, people are so hyped in making money that they are forgetting that other people wants to make money too, and may be they are using as instruments for that to come into fruition. Most of the time, people's gullibility are what these flawed devs and managers use to make more money. If the project seems off, just watch from afar and never put a single dime onto it.

[serjent05]

has anyone actually tried to dabble in the governance of some PoS chains?
i find it a total shit show, and i'm slowly thinking it might be a buzzword to get you to buy in. here are some of my issues:

It is a strategy to make their coins to have a use, or encourage holding.  I also find governance as a centralized version of cryptocurrency.  They keep on saying it is decentralized but the mere fact that most governance is led by the developer themselves and/or those people who have a huge amount of stash simply show what I am thinking is correct.  Aside from that I symphatize with you that letting people that has a poor vission and knoledge of economics but has power because they hold more tokens will simply make the project unpredictable and may often lead to exploits.

[Yogee]

....whereas something like bitcoin has governance that doesn't open the doors to random people to vote on proposal they might not even be bothered to read.

Hehe this is what I like the most in your whole post. It may be a hard pill to swallow for some POS fanatics but there's truth to this since not all investors are highly technical or has basic knowledge of the protocol.

also, participants have no idea how much power they vs. the devs have. remember how Solend bypassed the whole governance system to protect a whale from liquidation?

Some of them still call it part of the "governance" thing hehe.

[libert19]

You raise the right points, as there is saying, there is nothing perfect in the world. You mostly have to choose between lesser of evil between the two. For eth however, I like to favor the PoS as it could have significant environmental impact and community appears to mature enough to make right decisions.

[vv181]

The four points you have explained could be summed down into a single thing, which is centralization. I don't think most of them deeply care enough about decentralization in which there won't be any consensus. The POS governance is deeply rooted in an ironic thing, as you are already aware, the Solend proposal which attempts to control/steal user funds is being passed. That truly indicates there is a much bigger problem that underlies how governance performs in those cryptocurrencies not specifically in the Solend ecosystem. After all, do PoS even could give a firm consensus toward the whole ecosystem? I doubt it is possible.

[Tytanowy Janusz]

has anyone actually tried to dabble in the governance of some PoS chains?
i find it a total shit show, and i'm slowly thinking it might be a buzzword to get you to buy in. here are some of my issues:

1. people who write proposals and people who vote are only the ones who know english. that means non-english speakers are excluded from deciding the future of a project.

google transate is free for eveyone.

2. some proposals are badly written and lack clarity or data. example: there was a proposal on Juno to hold lots of money from the treasury and fund developers with it who migrated from Luna after the Luna collapse. no mention of who these devs are, how many there are, what projects they'll be working on. yet everyone voted yes because it sounded good.

Vote against if proposer did not make enough effort to explain well what he meant

3. someone who doesn't want to be involved in governance and just liked the principles of the crypto project has to accept the fact that the project might be totally different in about 2 years after some proposal he/she doesn't agree with. This makes people micro-manage their money. Not everyone got the time or energy for that, especially if they're invested in more than one crypto and need to follow and read proposals for each crypto.

Its even worse in real life. You vote for gouvement and then they do whatever they want for 4 years.

4. voters need to pay a fee to be able to vote. this means early adopters decide the rules for late adopters who are just observing the space before they get in. that's not inclusive/universal.

Most often its small network fee. Like few cents.

[Cryptornd]

I am also agree with you. my idea is these governance system emerged as a support to promote the DAO  system which most of crypto enthusiasts think that will be the next major trend of cryptocurrency world. the voters might be their own group who is paid to act as the protocol is truly decentralized and it is a 100% Dao ecosystem. most of new crypto projects use this governance word as a marketing method and they just pretend they are legit.

[mu_enrico]

This PoS with governance is flawed since it can tinkers its monetary system from "the default" or genesis. I saw many examples of coins that cut their inflation rate just because the community agree, without foreseeing things in the long run. As long as it will increase the coin price, it's all good, no questions asked. This is why Bitcoin is superior because things are fixed, no tinkering with the block time, block reward, etc. on a monthly basis. Anyway, PoS itself is a centralized system where a person or an entity with a big enough bag can steer the project.

IMO the governance shouldn't be built on the protocol but as DAO. People can steer the DAO and create as many DAOs as they want, but it won't change the tokenomics and stuff on the base protocol. In real life, it's like when you do vote on the government, but don't vote on the constitution, name, and flag... It's pretty much fixed.