I’m sorry but this answer doesn’t make sense. You are using words whose meaning escapes you. Can you provide the research paper you mention?
1 Like
Hi
Who are “us” Phil ?
What are your ties with AiB ?
Where in the Atom2.0 paper do you find a “single council” structure ?
Hi Phil - Would it be possible for you to provide a link to the actual research paper? Cheers
Blockquote Validators start off with to much power
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.
Blockquote why make a foundation council when there is already the ICF?
The model we build is applicable to any chain & DAO. That’s why we want it chain agnostic as much as possible. 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
1 Like
it’s pretty straightforward :
- The holder can cast his own vote if he wants to.
- IF the user don’t cast his vote THEN :
- IF the liquid staked token is deposited in the Treasury THEN the council who has that delegated token can cast the vote on the holder’s behalf.
- IF the user has not delegated its token in the Treasury THEN the vote is casted by the validators he has chosen to delegate its security to (the existing model).
1 Like
Hi, us = me + a dev team behind me which is willing to remain private at that point. We’ll release more details on that later of course. This is just the beginning.
We have no ties with any existing body in the Hub. We are an independant, multi-chain initiative.
In the atom 2 paper, there was a proposition very similar to us with multiple councils freely organizing themselves (quite like we want it to) but there are no balancing between council types like we do (foundation, validators, developer & delegators councils) to ensure decentralization. Moreover what scared us was that hierarchy of power of councils having to elect a cosmos assembly. With little details on that it looked like a super-council capable of veto on councils… We think this is a dangerous vertical solution
1 Like
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.
respectfully, your model is trash
2 Likes
I don’t want a centralized political power as you explain .
Actual system is decenlized and democratic enough .
1 Like
Pretty disappointed in how short the “paper” actually is, if you could even call it a paper. Significant changes should be grounded and justified through proper research, but I don’t see any of that in your document. Not a single reference to any relevant literature to back your claims up. For me, it’s hard to take this seriously when it’s presented like that. Just my 2 cents.
5 Likes
This is indeed the impression it gives. 5 pages that give little or no information. And the author’s answers are curious to say the least. Who are the authors? What are the author’s qualifications?
The page on Commonwealth does not give more clarification and on the contrary reinforces the idea of a not very competent profile of the author
2 Likes
Has anybody asked for your judgement here on a personal level ? This forum has only one goal, share ideas and improve on them by discussing… you are no discussing, you are trolling and offer absolutely no improvement of any form. I’m pretty disappointed to see that happening even here… Who am I ? what the hell you care about ? Am I competent enough to talk ? YES I AM, because everyone in this world is invited to the table… Bring something to the table or leave that post please… we need constructive people here. Your feeling about this proposal can be bad, you’ve shared it already, now either you help improve or you stop monopolizing the topic with unproductive content
1 Like
It is barely centralized today, and tbh it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the there is a slippery slope. That’s what we highlight on the fig1. One cohort is naturally heading to centralized problems, the foundation type… Turn out the system we have today largely favor them and the validators… ; these two are the most prone to centralization due to the limit number of actors they count. On the other end are the delegators & developers who barely participate in governance today due the complexity it is to do it ; Believe me, I wanted to try myself to see, it IS definitely impossible to participate in governance without spending hours a day to do it. SO >> we definitely need delegates representing delegators interests & developers’. Otherwise the system will naturally centralize even more toward foundation & validator forces.
I hope it’s clearer that way ! Is it ?
1 Like
While you do have a point in that criticism should always try to be constructive, it is also the case that we have to maintain a certain level of standard when it comes to how we present and formulate ideas and proposals in order to support efficient and fruitful deliberation. Decentralised governance is already complex and time-consuming as it is. Backing up claims not just with well-thought-out justifications and rationales but at the very least some form of research is not exactly an outrageous request but pretty standard practice. For example, you recognise that “some social coordination” is required for blockchain governance to “function properly”, in which not one but many intra-competitive councils is a “must”. Why is that? What kind of social coordination are we talking about, and is there any literature out there that would suggest this approach is the right one in solving that coordination? Is there previous research that can support such claims? I’m deeply engaged in this topic, so I’m genuinly curious of what you have to say. I think a multi-group structure for governance makes a lot of sense for many reasons, none of which are highlighted here. We can’t be making significant changes to Cosmos based on, as you put it, personal level judgement, but we need to ground it in something substantial.
1 Like
The main research is the one that was putted into the Atom 2,0 whitepaper… the one we made is an abstract at best… written by a single person who might have just a bit of experience in economic models. If I followed your point, participating in debating ideas here requires to spend a year of phd research with full documented sources just to open a topic. Our message seemed clearly written on the intro… atom2 paper has introduced a very good piece of research about treasuries & councils, we just took over on this matter an proposed an alternate system based on the same principles.
We came bringing something to the table, most of the response what outrageous critics… It’s astonishingly disastrous to say the least. I don’t have time to make that deep research, does that make it worth nothing ? The path you take here is a very slippery slope. Earlier you called me illegitimate to talk… Well that’s just how censorship begins. I hope things will improve cause I believe in the genuine advancement that the hub has over other forthcoming DAOs. Because we have much more smart people in there than people who just complain and trash other’s work. Anyway… I wish I could have done better in such short notice. Now please also note that this is volunteer job taken out of the many other things that I do. The response that we had here (and even worse in evmos) is the symptom that proves there is clearly a problem in the forum system. You can say I’m the problem… but deep down, you know i’m not. I just revealed the very problem itself; You are in closed circles and if we don’t follow your rules, we are not accepted at the table; Before being considered here I was supposed to explain how competent I am to express myself… well you have it wrong. Do it like that and you’re no more than a corporation organisation structure. What I propose is a free open meritocracy. Where everyone can talk, present, and try to gather approval. What you do is the opposite, putting filters in place to select individuals who are “worth it” but in the end, just a bunch of fellows that will talk in self-reinforcing thought process… But maybe you need me to search original socio-economic research paper on that matter to prove this isn’t just invention ?
1 Like
So obviously the project stops when one points out the lack of clarity of the proposal or even its lack of meaning. Everyone can indeed debate, but it is always more interesting to give an opinion when it is constructed and based on an understanding of the subjects discussed rather than on a fragmented understanding. It has been a succession of interventions from the author that have been embarrassing to say the least. I wish him to come back with a more elaborated version, and maybe to have a less imposing ego. I look forward for the Govmos V2 abstract/note/research paper/PhD thesis
3 Likes
I’m going to respond by quoting the author, it will be almost cruel but probably helpful so he can improve.
“the one we made is an abstract at best”: The author presented his work as a research paper. Words have meaning and a research paper is expected to have a bibliography, a detail of the problem raised and a thorough explanation of the proposed solution as well as perspectives for further work. The author has at best provided a blog post.
“who might have just a bit of experience in economic models” : I don’t deny the author’s competence in various fields, but I note the lack of competence in the field addressed by this post. You can be a great cook without giving value to your opinion on the restoration of chiral symmetry.
“Our message seemed clearly written on the intro” : this obviously doesn’t seem to be the case since several different people have expressed a contrary opinion.
“I don’t have time to make that deep research, does that make it worth nothing?”. Yes, absolutely. Totally yes. The author talks about a research paper and at the same time confesses that he doesn’t have time to do any research work on the subject. this sentence is terrible but it reflects the problem, it’s a paper without any value because without any background work behind it, it’s closer to bar talk than anything else.
“Earlier you called me illegitimate to talk… Well that’s just how censorship begins” : There is competence and legitimacy. If a person has neither, he can express himself, but it is possible that what he has to say will be of little interest. The author has been read, has been debated despite the lack of both. On the other hand, the author has not been flattered and his ego must have taken a blow since he discovered that his reflection was not as deep as he might like to believe.
“Now please also note that this is volunteer job taken out of the many other things that I do.” The worst excuse in the world, just because the work is done voluntarily doesn’t mean it can be botched.
“but deep down, you know i’m not” : personally I think you are the expression of an old problem, the fact that anyone can talk about anything without asking themselves if what they say has any added value.
“we don’t follow your rules, we are not accepted at the table”: You have to earn your place at the table, prove your competence and added value, show that you bring something. This means presenting a decent work and if it is not the case, acknowledging it without playing the princess.
“Where everyone can talk, present, and try to gather approval”: And this is what the author tried, and he did not succeed in getting the expected approval. But he got a consensus on his idea and model: no interest as it is.
"But maybe you need me to search original socio-economic research paper on that matter to prove this isn’t just invention ? : yes. I encourage the author to take the time to source his words with scientific reading. This is how scientific thinking advances and therefore qualitative discussions take place, which can be followed by innovative ideas. Otherwise, the author can sit at the bar and have drunken discussions without any head or tail and indulge in the illusion of his competence and of a job well done.
3 Likes
It has never been presented as a « research paper ». I clearly stated this was research, in a sense this was at the ideation phase, bringing ideas to the table and gather feedback to orientate further. I also mentioned « paper » cause that seemed the appropriate syntax, BUT this was never meant to be a scientific research paper. Now that you mention it maybe we should have opted for ideation instead of research, i’ll update the title to avoid confusion.
1 Like
You persist on bringing things back to a personal level. This is inapropriate, I did my best to answer some comments of yours that were just absolutely out of sync with what that forum should be. You clearly were the one who started this. Just read your first message plz. This paper was never meant to elaborate as it’s not a proposition, it’s an ideation for a process that won’t be active until a few quarters of Community improvements.
1 Like
Another very embarrassing answer.
“It has never been presented as a “research paper””: this is literally the third sentence of the document you provided. Please be serious, it’s pathetic.
“i’ll update the title to avoid confusion”: this is a good start but there is still a lot to be done to avoid confusion.
I’m sorry that my first answer was not dithyrambic, it was perfectly calibrated to fit the quality of the proposal made by the authors.
1 Like