A TFL rep has informed me that TFL categorically does not participate in governance votes. No comment from LFG yet but I assume it extends to them since their wallet hasn't voted yet. This plus the burn proposal explanation almost entirely alleviates my governance concerns.
-
ok but what happens when whales vote for a proposal that the majority of retail/avg joe doesn't want? Seems there is a divide between whale/VCs/devs and retail/general public on whether to fork or burn.
#BurnLuna has been trending 48hr+ now. So who decides? Whales, or retail?
This is a problem with the governance structure in general, and you can definitely criticize it, but it's hard to mitigate (one vote per wallet is highly exploitable). The advertised governance system seems to work, but whether the system is actually good or not is debatable.
-
-
Definitely not perfect, but I kind of consider current governance structures in crypto in general as macro work in progress for the entire industry.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
maybe some sort of representational system could be devised? place groups of small + large balance wallets together (maybe limits on how many of each "size tier" in any single group), and then have those groups cast a vote based on majority sentiment in that rep group? 1/
-
I'm no tech expert lol. just brainstorming. there has to be some other way to allow both parties to be represented equally. Then again, we haven't even figured out an optimal system in our real-world political governance models yet. So maybe there isn't one.
2/2
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.