Shane Glynn
@cno
Some notes on being willing to lose: The current ARB DAO issue, and the ongoing Stanford student punishment issue, highlight the difficulty in building a robust decision-making system. People tend to focus on things like voting and representation, and that’s important, but not nearly as important as losing.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Shane Glynn
@cno
The *most* important part of any decision-making system is the ability for the system to enforce a decision when it goes against a powerful participant. This can be via social convention, smart contract, etc, but without that you have little more than a complex system of “thoughts & prayers”.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Shane Glynn
@cno
For Americans this can be a bit of a blind spot because our two big dispute resolution mechanisms, courts and elections, generally work okay. Powerful people accept losses from these institutions for the most part.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Shane Glynn
@cno
But it’s fairly rare for institutions like this to exists because if you have power, why not use it to get what you want?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Shane Glynn
@cno
I think the Arbitrum leadership thought that AIP-1 would pass and got caught flat footed when it failed. (On a linguistic note - “ratification” is mandatory, not advisory, so even their ex post discussion of the vote is nonsensical.)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Shane Glynn
@cno
It’s very good to see Arbitrum reversing their position and breaking up AIP-1 into a series of smaller proposals and, hopefully, they will abide by the results of those votes. Onwards towards stronger governance norms in crypto!
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction