IDEATION : Governance Councils & Treasury Modules

[common_spelling]

@Govmos

I agree on that, partly at least, but our model doesn’t want to crush validator power, just rebalance. We think that this will mostly happend with the LSM (liquid staking module) if we improve it by adding a “Vote Transport” function that moves the vote along with the liquid staked representation. Anyone using LS will stop delegating his vote to the validators it has chosen for security. That breaks the bond between security & governance delegation. People would delegate security to validators, and governance to councils in the treasury module.

This sounds like a terrible idea. that removes the necessity for those with the most power to have the most skin in the game. what aligns your incentives more to the success of the chain than risk of great loss upon failure?

after separating security and gov, what stops the councils from voting to pay themselves the treasury, and minting 40 million more atom?

This isnt XRP, 4 councils is not decentralized.

@Govmos

Any chain having a foundation, should formalize the council easily, they would just have to delegate their foundation LS tokens to their foundation council. We use that model to define the basic requirement to call a DAO. It requires 4 councils, otherwise you dont have a DAO, your have relatively centralized operating governance. Here’s our standpoint

respectfully, your model is trash