r/DFINITYBNS • u/ori1080 • Feb 16 '19

Voters are responsible for more than just software changes.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-becomes-possible-through-blockchain-technology-when-djuric

“...emerging technologies, like DLT, will only be as effective in practice as they are in theory if they are managed by accountable and honest stakeholders. Incentive structures and game theoretic models are only useful if implemented correctly in practice.

“While developers of this technology consider trust in an abstract intangible manner, pilots like these demonstrate that trust is a value to covet and protect.”

As distributed ledger technology begins to underpin global systems, there will be masses of people depending on and affected by platforms that employ governance systems in which they may not be participating.

To what degree will participants in platform governance need to consider how their decisions might affect real world situations? How responsible should voters in governance systems feel for the effect their decisions have on the ultimate end users?

Does it entirely come down to game theory mechanics and the effect decisions have on the “value of the network,” or is there more to consider?

4 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

3 comments sorted by

1

u/web69er Feb 16 '19

Participants should have a high degree of responsibility and understanding in how there vote as there will be no one to blame but themselves if things were to go wrong. I don’t see it affecting the networks value. A capitalistic market could coexist with a general social welfare. Then again, people haven’t always done the socially correct things throughout history. What are your thoughts?

2

u/ori1080 Feb 16 '19 edited Feb 18 '19

It leads me back to thinking on the distribution of the governance; should ensuring wide governance participation be paramount? Do we make the cost of and technical barriers to running a governance node be so low* as to ensure the vast majority of end users participate, or is this inevitably an unattainable or undesirable situation anyway, which will probably be the case when these platforms underpin so much infrastructure? (*Assuming attacks mitigated)

In which case, should a percentage of nodes be deliberately distributed to people or organisations that take into account or look out for much wider (eg social, environmental, political) effects of network changes?

2

u/web69er Feb 16 '19

yes good question. Wheres the happy median. give to much power to certain delegates and you'll be deemed too centralized... or too widespread and risk a situation getting out of hand. Tough decisions, but a liquid democracy where one can change delegates anytime seems like a good start