So $Comp gives users some type of governance on the protocol. Does these controls translate to revenue?
3
1
17
Conversation
Replying to
Potentially--e.g. COMP could vote to institute a fee on Compound and airdrop it to COMP holders
5
19
This process is centralised though isn’t it? Smart contract would be required to be drafted out by the team. What if compound team dissolve or refuse? Is this not just defi theatre?
GIF
read image description
ALT
1
compound.finance/governance
I think that anyone with at least 100,000 COMP can propose smart contract changes and then all COMP holders can vote on them
(not 100% sure of that, but that's what I think)
1
1
No doubt true but I’m talking about the actual process of governance change. Voting initiates the process but the process is still implementated in a centralised manner. It feel like governance theatre is what I’m saying. 🤷♀️
1
1
Don't think the team is necessary for any part of the process--any large holder can initiate it and submit the smart contract--but it is def reliant on the views of the largest holders a fair bit
1
1
I’m unsure about the implementation but feels like “tyranny of the majority” is possible then? Not shitting on $COMP specifically but it’s just defi is more permissioned than decentralised imo.
1
1
Yeah that's def a worry!
Even in a decentralized system some set of people have to make the decisions; in this case it's the COMP holders, and the COMP distribution is somewhat bulky with the top few. It's sort of the central tradeoff: simplicity/speed vs decentralization
Yeah. Logically I think the best path for #defi is to have some sort of legal assurance for users. Too cowboy town otherwise since “stealing your money” is part of the rules in the game. Unpopular opinion I’m sure.
1
That wouldn't be crazy--though I think a lot of DeFi fans would instead suggest that everything should be super public and if people don't like the decisions made, they should fork to a new chain.
1
1
Show replies