I think the governance model with the senate, house and judiciary are genius ideas allowing for the decentralization of power while having a focus on what's best for the community. Also with such incentives and rewards community participants can remain stake holders in the success of the network and any application that may reside on the XDC Network
one thing I think could be added is some slashing mechanism or a vote of loss confidence where party members can slash bad actors that may covertly, or overtly attempt to game the governance system, this just allows for a means of control by the stake holders against bad actors
another thing I would ADD is potentially adding more judiciaries with a 90% participate rate 1. I feel like the 5 now would have the network be incredibly skewd in one direction allowing 3 judiciaries to determine the direction any given app is going and I feel like raising that number to 10-15 allows for more conversing on a topic before a decision can be made and allow for better representation for different factions on the network like investors both retail and institution,developers,layer2 projects, the protocol team, the master-nodes, and even migrating projects from other networks(I just don't feel 5 adequately represents the community)
one last thing I would add as a suggestion but participation should be front and center for all stake holders involved lack of involvement should be met with either a vote of loss confidence or a slash
otherwise I love the idea I think creating a governing system to ensure the effective growth and decentralization of the network is pivotal to the success of the network as well as effectively organizing an agenda around concerns in the space in a equitable way
Good stuff. 1) I do think it might make sense to add a couple more judiciary members. One downside there is that being on the judiciary is actually going to require quite a lot of work - you can't just show up and vote; you have to write numerous, lengthy reports, hold regular meetings, etc. So finding 10-15 people who are willing to devote so much time to that isn't easy. 2) Another thing is, I think, you don't want too many people on the committee that they can't easily jump on a call and deliberate, forge strong working relationships, and trust. So maybe 7-9 is a good middle ground? 3) I like the idea of adding a way for the House and Senate to call a referendum and boot someone from the committee in extraordinary circumstances. The downside there is that you'll tend to convulse the community and embroil in controversy. Maybe better to just wait for the term of the members to expire and then throw the bums out and elect new members? In that case, though, we should definitely find a way to allow proposals to be submitted multiple times, as Sal said in his comment here, perhaps with a waiting period in between, so as to account for changeover in the government/community over time. 4) I don't think we should put layer 2s on the judiciary (though of course the community can vote in whoever they want), as Salomon said as well - that'd be too great a conflict of interest. Essentially, they'd be asked to vote on funding or not funding their competition. Moreover, layer 2s aren't necessarily only building on XDC; their highest loyalty is ultimately to themselves, however much it may overlap with the good of the network overall. 5) Finally, and this is key, the judiciary IS an anti-majoritarian element here, like the Supreme Court, it's a check on the excesses and dangers of populism. Key to remember here that the judiciary, while powerful, cannot simply ram through funding approvals by itself - it absolutely needs the support of the other branches. The worst a corrupt judiciary could ever do is block proposals that don't have overwhelming community support - they couldn't seize the treasury, and that's the main thing we want to prevent. Again, great points and I'm going to take them all under consideration.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
I think the governance model with the senate, house and judiciary are genius ideas allowing for the decentralization of power while having a focus on what's best for the community. Also with such incentives and rewards community participants can remain stake holders in the success of the network and any application that may reside on the XDC Network
one thing I think could be added is some slashing mechanism or a vote of loss confidence where party members can slash bad actors that may covertly, or overtly attempt to game the governance system, this just allows for a means of control by the stake holders against bad actors
another thing I would ADD is potentially adding more judiciaries with a 90% participate rate 1. I feel like the 5 now would have the network be incredibly skewd in one direction allowing 3 judiciaries to determine the direction any given app is going and I feel like raising that number to 10-15 allows for more conversing on a topic before a decision can be made and allow for better representation for different factions on the network like investors both retail and institution,developers,layer2 projects, the protocol team, the master-nodes, and even migrating projects from other networks(I just don't feel 5 adequately represents the community)
one last thing I would add as a suggestion but participation should be front and center for all stake holders involved lack of involvement should be met with either a vote of loss confidence or a slash
otherwise I love the idea I think creating a governing system to ensure the effective growth and decentralization of the network is pivotal to the success of the network as well as effectively organizing an agenda around concerns in the space in a equitable way
Good stuff. 1) I do think it might make sense to add a couple more judiciary members. One downside there is that being on the judiciary is actually going to require quite a lot of work - you can't just show up and vote; you have to write numerous, lengthy reports, hold regular meetings, etc. So finding 10-15 people who are willing to devote so much time to that isn't easy. 2) Another thing is, I think, you don't want too many people on the committee that they can't easily jump on a call and deliberate, forge strong working relationships, and trust. So maybe 7-9 is a good middle ground? 3) I like the idea of adding a way for the House and Senate to call a referendum and boot someone from the committee in extraordinary circumstances. The downside there is that you'll tend to convulse the community and embroil in controversy. Maybe better to just wait for the term of the members to expire and then throw the bums out and elect new members? In that case, though, we should definitely find a way to allow proposals to be submitted multiple times, as Sal said in his comment here, perhaps with a waiting period in between, so as to account for changeover in the government/community over time. 4) I don't think we should put layer 2s on the judiciary (though of course the community can vote in whoever they want), as Salomon said as well - that'd be too great a conflict of interest. Essentially, they'd be asked to vote on funding or not funding their competition. Moreover, layer 2s aren't necessarily only building on XDC; their highest loyalty is ultimately to themselves, however much it may overlap with the good of the network overall. 5) Finally, and this is key, the judiciary IS an anti-majoritarian element here, like the Supreme Court, it's a check on the excesses and dangers of populism. Key to remember here that the judiciary, while powerful, cannot simply ram through funding approvals by itself - it absolutely needs the support of the other branches. The worst a corrupt judiciary could ever do is block proposals that don't have overwhelming community support - they couldn't seize the treasury, and that's the main thing we want to prevent. Again, great points and I'm going to take them all under consideration.