Few efforts have helped the XDC Network gain more legitimacy in the eyes of the industry participants than the decentralized adoption of the technology and the various entities/individuals that have helped facilitate that adoption.
An effort to further decentralize the ecosystem development process will place the network on the leading edge of industry practices and help the network continue to move in the direction global regulators are uniformly steering.
At first glance, I think the representative democracy outlined here should help to disperse the decision making power amongst different interest groups. Nothing will be perfect out of the gate or ever; but it's good first step.
I plan to take more more time to process the proposed structure, election processes and the checks and balances considered here. I probably will have more thoughts around the judiciary committee, specifically, as a number factors will need to be considered and contingency plans for a whole branch represented by such few people.
When it comes to proposals themselves, I do have a specific thought. I question whether a proposal should ever be outright banned from being resubmitted regardless of whether or not it received adequate voter participation.
Mainly, the reason is two fold: one, as we all know the landscape of this space is constantly changing and the ecosystem will need to remain increasingly adaptable to drive adoption and remain competitive with other L1s. An NFT-based project proposal that may have been voted down in early 2020 may be near universally embraced by the community in late 2021.
If the latest innovations are not being developed on the XDC Network, then community members might seek other networks where participants are truly innovating.
Second, building community means adding new participants with diverse interests and skill sets. There is historical precedent for exponential growth of community as well. So the majority of today might not be the majority of tomorrow.
I think we have to allow proposals to be revisited as the community, the industry and the team behind each proposal develops. The proposal I would imagine could be revised and resubmitted, but I would want to ensure that.
Just getting these thoughts down for now and will revisit some the weightier matters later.
I think this needs to be carefully considered.
Few efforts have helped the XDC Network gain more legitimacy in the eyes of the industry participants than the decentralized adoption of the technology and the various entities/individuals that have helped facilitate that adoption.
An effort to further decentralize the ecosystem development process will place the network on the leading edge of industry practices and help the network continue to move in the direction global regulators are uniformly steering.
At first glance, I think the representative democracy outlined here should help to disperse the decision making power amongst different interest groups. Nothing will be perfect out of the gate or ever; but it's good first step.
I plan to take more more time to process the proposed structure, election processes and the checks and balances considered here. I probably will have more thoughts around the judiciary committee, specifically, as a number factors will need to be considered and contingency plans for a whole branch represented by such few people.
When it comes to proposals themselves, I do have a specific thought. I question whether a proposal should ever be outright banned from being resubmitted regardless of whether or not it received adequate voter participation.
Mainly, the reason is two fold: one, as we all know the landscape of this space is constantly changing and the ecosystem will need to remain increasingly adaptable to drive adoption and remain competitive with other L1s. An NFT-based project proposal that may have been voted down in early 2020 may be near universally embraced by the community in late 2021.
If the latest innovations are not being developed on the XDC Network, then community members might seek other networks where participants are truly innovating.
Second, building community means adding new participants with diverse interests and skill sets. There is historical precedent for exponential growth of community as well. So the majority of today might not be the majority of tomorrow.
I think we have to allow proposals to be revisited as the community, the industry and the team behind each proposal develops. The proposal I would imagine could be revised and resubmitted, but I would want to ensure that.
Just getting these thoughts down for now and will revisit some the weightier matters later.
Great point. Yes.