►
From YouTube: State of Ethereum Governance Discussion [2019/05/09]
Description
A presentation and discussion on the present state of Ethereum governance, including a sneak peak of some of the findings of the COALA working group on Ethereum governance held in May, 2019.
Slides: https://github.com/lrettig/talks/blob/master/20190509-state-of-ethereum-governance.pdf
Participants:
- Cristie Ford, Professor, Allard School of Law, The University of British Columbia
- Santiago Siri, Cofounder, Democracy Earth Foundation
- William Mougayar, Author, The Business Blockchain
- Phoebe Tickell (https://twitter.com/solarpunk_girl, https://www.phoebetickell.com), DGov Foundation, Enspiral
- Anja Blaj, Lawyer, Co-organizer DGov Foundation
- Georgy Ishmaev, Delft University of Technology
- Lane Rettig (https://twitter.com/lrettig), Core Developer, Ethereum/Ewasm
Massive thank you to the other participants in the COALA governance workshop who contributed to the material presented in this talk.
A
All
right
so
yeah,
let's,
let's
go
ahead
and
dive
in
we.
So
this
is
a
presentation
on
the
state
of
aetherium
governance
and
I
gave
this
presentation
at
a
koala
event
a
few
days
ago,
and
it
was
pretty
well
received,
and
so
we're
really
excited
to
share
the
same
presentation
now
publicly
and
it'll
be
recorded
as
well
for
posterity.
Why
don't?
Why?
Don't
we
go
ahead
and
dive
into
introductions?
And
while
you
guys
do
the
introductions
I
can
try
to
sort
out
this
echo
thing
I'm,
seeing
on
my
side,
William,
do
you
wanna
go
first.
B
C
D
Hi
everyone
I'm
Christie,
Sehorne
I'm,
a
law
professor
at
the
Allen
school
of
law
in
Vancouver
Canada,
although
currently
I'm
a
Verdell
at
the
European
University
Institute
in
Florence
Italy.
My
main
areas
of
writing
and
scholarship
and
teaching
have
been
around
regulatory
theory,
especially
as
it
connects
to
financial
innovation
in
particular.
E
Jump
in
hi
everyone,
I'm
phoebe,
tekele
and
I'm,
a
part
of
the
Diigo
foundation
and
also
a
member
in
spiral
and
I'm
very
interested
and
involved
in
the
field
of
distributive
governance,
especially
on
the
soft
governance
side.
So
helping
organizations
in
groups
with
practices
and
tools
and
kind
of
norms
for
distributed
non
hierarchical
and
horizontal
governance.
A
Basically,
it
is
a
group
which
is
existed
for
a
few
years,
which
brings
together
soso
experts
and
scholars
from
fields
like
some
of
the
the
wonderful
folks
who
have
joined
us
here.
Things
like
legal
studies,
obviously
but
also
philosophy,
ethics,
conflict
resolution.
Things
like
that
and
I
felt
for
quite
some
time
as
a
as
a
practitioner
and
non
non
expert
in
non-academic.
A
You
know
who
bumps
up
against
many
of
these
topics
in
the
day
to
day
work
I
do
on
aetherium
that
that
we
really
desperately
need
to
learn
from
folks
such
as
these,
and
so
thank
you
all
again,
very
very
much
for
joining
I.
Think
koala
is
a
really
wonderful
platform
to
further
that
sort
of
engagement
going
forward
and
I
felt
very
honored
to
be
a
part
of
that
group
last
week
and
looking
forward
to
sharing
some
of
what
we
discussed
in
some
of
our
findings
here.
So
let's
go
ahead
and
dive
in
to
this
presentation.
A
In
the
interest
of
time,
as
I
said
before,
we
started
broadcasting
and
recording:
let's,
let's
make
this
participatory.
So
like
please
jump
in
anytime.
If
you
guys
have
any
questions
I'm
going
to
alright,
so
you
should
be
able
to
see
the
slides
again.
Do
you
guys
see
the
slides
yeah?
It
works,
alright,
excellent
yeah.
So
so
this
is
a
presentation,
as
I
said
that
was
given
at
this
koala
summit.
A
few
days
ago,
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
walk
through
it
now
and
there's
there's
a
little
bit
of
additional
material.
A
We
added
at
the
end
where
we
can
share
some
of
what
our
working
group
discussed
so
I'm
Lane
I
am
a
core
developer
on
the
II.
Wasn't
team
but
I've
been
thinking
a
great
deal
about
governance
and
learning
a
great
deal
about
it
alongside
folks,
such
as
the
others
on
the
call
today
and
I
guess
what
else
guy
can
say
about
this
presentation?
It's
90%
practice
and
only
about
10%
theory.
Although
I
guess
the
theory
needle
may
move
slightly
up
with
the
input
of
the
other
researchers
and
more
experienced
people,
we
have
joining
us.
A
We
will
briefly
touch
upon
connection
of
some
of
these
challenges:
we're
facing
and
aetherium
governance,
two
different
fields
and
disciplines,
including
again
things
like
governance
and
legal
studies
and
political
science,
ethics,
etc
will
presents
a
set
of
recommendations
going
forward
things
to
think
about
some
ideas
and
then
we'll
briefly
give
a
sort
of
glimpse
of
some
of
those
findings
from
the
working
group
and
we'll
save
time
for
questions
at
the
end.
This
is
if,
if
all
the
software
is
working,
we
should
be
live
on
Twitter.
A
If
any
of
you
on
the
call
want
to
verify
by
going
to
twitter.com,
slash
Ella
Rettig,
you
should
see
a
live
stream
there,
and
so
hopefully
we
can
take
questions
there
as
well.
Just
checking
here,
I
have
okay
yeah.
We
have
a
chat
window
open
as
well
from
Twitter
cool,
so
let's
start
with
some
history.
A
So
this
is
a
very,
very
brief
snapshot
of
sort
of
the
etherium
timeline
up
to
and
including
the
present,
and
the
main
point
I
want
to
make
with
this
slide
is
just
that.
Aetherium
is
very,
very
young
right.
The
main
that
went
live
only
in
2015.
A
lot
has
happened
since
then
there
have
been
a
few
network
upgrades,
etc,
but
it's
it's
sort
of
the
set
of
stakeholders
has
grown
enormously.
Recently,
oh
I
heard
some
audio
I
think
someone
got
checked.
The
stream
was
that
is
that
working.
A
Cool
yep,
so
I
thought
it'd
be
fun
to
start
with
a
slideshow
and
just
kind
of
present
visually
a
little
bit
of
what
the
social
evolution
of
ethereum
has
looked
like
these
past
few
years.
So
quick,
disclaimer
I've
been
told
that
a
couple
of
these
early
slides
are
slightly
out
of
order,
but
I'm
exercising
some
poetic
license
here
to
tell
a
story.
So
basically,
this
is
how
aetherium
started
in
early
2014
quickly
grew
to
include
a
few
more
stakeholders
still
entirely
men.
A
A
This
is
DEFCON
2,
which
happened
in
Shanghai
in
2016,
so
again,
quite
a
bit
of
growth,
a
bit
more
diversity,
which
is
a
good
thing.
This
was
Devcon
3,
which
happened
in
Cancun
Mexico
in
2017.
This
was
my
first
aetherium
event
and
no
longer
kind
of
fit
everyone
into
a
single
photo
even
like
a
wide-angle
photo-
and
this
was
the
most
recent
Def
Con
2018
in
Prague
last
autumn
and
again,
I
really
do
think
a
photo
tells
a
thousand
words
and
I
think
the
community's
become
much
more
kind
of
orderly
here.
A
This
is
one
of
the
core
devs
meetings
from
early
2017,
again
to
be
perfectly
explicit,
there's
a
little
bit
of
poetic
license
here.
This
was
like
early
in
the
call
and
I
think
a
few
other
people
joined
later.
There
are
no
images
of
the
calls
from
as
far
back
as
or
or
I
should
say,
video
recordings
of
the
calls
from
as
far
back
as
2016.
But
to
put
this
in
context,
this
core
devs
meeting
has
happened
every
two
weeks
since
around
2016,
and
it's
we'll
talk
more
about
how
it
fits
into
aetherium
governance
later.
A
But
it
is
one
of
our
kind
of
relatively
formal
governance
mechanisms
and
at
this
point
in
time,
as
you
can
see,
there
were
five
people
on
the
call
and
if
we
fast-forward
a
little
bit,
this
is
a
much
more
recent
call.
I
think
this
was
actually
an
Arian
to
call,
but
you
can
see,
there's
38
people
on
this
call.
Some
of
the
more
recent
calls
I
believe
have
even
gotten
into
the
50s.
So
again
just
to
show
you
know
you
have
people
here
representing
many
projects,
many
perspectives,
many
different
geographies
around
the
world.
A
This
is
the
etherium,
the
fellowship
of
ethereal
magicians.
This
was
one
of
the
first
events.
This
was
last
summer.
I
believe
in
berlin
and
just
just
putting
this
up
to
show
that
so
the
fellowship
of
the
theory,
magicians
is
basically
a
grassroots
effort
that
was
started
by
two
gentlemen,
Jamie
Pitts
and
Greg.
Colvin
Craig
is
the
the
gentleman
on
the
right
there
holding
the
microphone
and
it's
a
way
to
kind
of
democratize:
aetherium
x'
technical
governance.
A
This
was
a
breakout
session
at
DEFCON,
focused
specifically
on
the
topics
of
diversity
and
inclusion
and
I'm.
Putting
this
slide
up
because
I
think
it's
a
big
step
forward
for
aetherium.
It
was
the
very
first
sort
of
official
recognition
of
the
fact
that
you
know
aetherium
is
a
platform
for
people
everywhere
and
that
it's
important
that
we
have
input
from
as
wide
a
variety
of
you
know:
voices
and
people
with
different
backgrounds
as
possible
cool
I'm
just
quickly
checking.
If
we
have
any
okay
I,
don't
see
any
comments
on
Twitter.
A
Okay
cool,
so
the
first
point
I
want
to
make
here
is
that
there's
a
important
distinction
between
governance
of
and
governance
by
blockchain.
This
is
a
point
that
folks,
including
Primavera
of
of
koala,
have
have
made
in
their
talks
in
the
past
and
I
like
to
start
with
this.
You
know
from
my
perspective,
what
makes
aetherium
so
exciting
is
the
potential
for
using
ethereum
to
govern
other
sorts
of
human
institutions.
So
things
like
it
could
be
anything
it
could
be
money
it
could
be,
it
could
be,
you
know,
adventures
or
enterprises.
A
However,
in
order
to
be
able
to
do
that,
it's
very
very
important
that
the
blockchain
itself
be
well
governed
and
be
stable
act
as
a
stable
foundation
for
building
these
other
sorts
of
institutions
on
top
of,
and
so
this
talk
is
going
to
be
focused
on
the
first
point
here:
governance
of
blockchain
yeah.
That
should
be
pretty
clear,
so
I
think.
A
The
very
first
interesting
question
to
ask
when
we
talk
about
sort
of
something
like
governing
aetherium
is
like
what
exactly
are
we
governing,
because
the
term
ethereum
is
a
bit
overloaded
and
refers
to
a
bunch
of
different
things.
I
won't
go
through
all
of
these
in
detail
right
now,
but
I
do
want
to
highlight
the
two
main
ones
that
we're
talking
about
right,
and
that
is
the
protocol
in
the
blockchain
itself
and
there's
a
distinction
here.
A
So
the
protocol
is
kind
of
the
set
of
code
each
of
the
different
aetherium
client
implementations
agree
to
implement
so
that
they
can
talk
to
one
another
and
function
as
a
single
network,
and
the
protocol
is
kind
of
the
process
by
which
blocks
are
added
to
the
blockchain
and
the
blockchain
itself
is
kind
of
that
data
structure
that
gets
built
up
over
time.
So
when
we
talk
about
governance
in
the
context
of
this
conversation,
we're
talking
about
governing
both
changes
to
the
protocol.
A
Again,
I
won't
go
through
all
of
these,
but
I'm
just
throwing
this
up
here
to
show
again
how
kind
of
diverse
and
complex
aetherium
has
become
so
there's
more
than
a
dozen
implementations
of
aetherium
1,
which
is
the
etherium
that's
running
today,
and
we
also
now
have
something
like
9
implementations
of
etherium
2,
which
is
the
next
generation
of
etherium,
so
again
lots
of
different
teams
around
the
world.
Building
this,
which
is
fantastic
right.
The
etherium
ethos,
unlike
projects
like
Bitcoin,
is
to
have
a
lot
of
diversity
in
our
implementations.
A
So
looking
at
the
way
etherium
is
governed
today,
I
feel
pretty
strongly
that
it
exhibits
aspects
of
each
of
these
systems
of
governance
and
you'll
notice
that
democracy
is
not
on
this
list
right,
we'll
come
back
to
that
later.
I
had
a
tweet
thread
about
this
a
few
weeks
ago,
and
you
know
again:
I
won't
go
through
all
of
these,
but
some
of
them
should
be
fairly
obvious,
some
of
them
less
obvious
right
so
plutocracy.
A
You
know
to
a
large
extent,
resources
are
controlled
by
by
a
very
small
set
of
influential
and
influential
individuals
and
groups
that
you
know
that
make
a
lot
of
decisions
and
exert
a
lot
of
influence
in
the
community
technocracy
because
we
have
the
set
of
core
developers
who
who
make
kind
of
those
final
decisions
about
what
makes
it
into
the
client
implementations.
I'll
highlight
theocracy.
This
is
slightly
tongue-in-cheek
slightly
serious.
A
You
know,
I
do
think
that
there
are
many
people
in
the
community
who
regard
the
opinions
and
the
decisions
made
by
certain
individuals
in
certain
organizations
as
sort
of
sacrosanct,
and
you
know
so
I
think
we
exhibit
some
characteristics
of
this
one
as
well
and
I
did
put
these
all
up
here.
You
know
quite
quite
seriously
meritocracy.
You
know
there's
definitely
cases
of
folks
who
joined
the
community
relatively
recently
and
have
gained
a
significant
I
guess,
people
kind
of
take
what
they
say.
A
Quite
seriously
because
they've
demonstrated
competence-
and
this
last
one
here,
I'll
just
mention,
because
some
people
may
not
be
familiar
with
the
term
org
autocracy.
So
this
is
this:
is
governance
by
the
workers
by
labor,
and
the
reason
I
put
this
up
here
is
because
miners
play
an
important
role
in
aetherium
governance
and
in
kind
of
the
extent
to
which
they
exert
influence.
A
Let's
say
over
aetherium
governance
is,
if
it
opened
for
interpretation,
but
again
they
do
play
a
very
important
role
in
governance
and
and
we
would
not
be
adding
blocks
to
the
chain
if
we
didn't
have
miners
mining.
So
that's
definitely
part
of
our
governance,
so
I'd
like
to
do
it
a
little
detour
here
and
just
introduce
the
IETF
for
folks
who
may
not
be
familiar
with
it.
The
IETF
is
the
internet,
Engineering
Task
Force,
and
it
is
a
non-profit
international
organization
that
is
responsible
for
governing
many
of
the
protocols
that
underlie
the
Internet.
A
So
these
are
things
like
tcp/ip
IETF
has
played
a
very
crucial
role
in
developing
the
Internet
and
getting
it
to
kind
of
where
it
is
today,
and
the
main
part
of
this
I
want
to
highlight
is
the
part
I
put
in
bold,
which
is
that
we
try
to
avoid
policy
and
business
questions
as
much
as
possible.
So
while,
while
in
some
loose
way,
aetherium
governance
is
modeled
after
IETF
and
some
organizations
like
the
ethereal
magicians
are
more
explicitly
modeled
after
I
eat
EF.
A
And
this
is
even
more
explicit,
so
this
was
one
of
the
early
and
most
influential
members
of
the
IETF
David
Clark.
He
said
we
reject
Kings
presidents
and
voting.
We
believe
in
rough
consensus
and
running
code
III
think
it's
really
important
to
highlight
this,
because
I
do
think
in
many
ways
it's
very
influential
to
the
governance
of
projects,
including
aetherium.
A
When
talking
about
governance
to
say,
hey,
why
don't
we
have
voting
along
these
lines
or
along
that
lines?
But
this
is
one
of
the
constraints
that
we're
working
with.
And
yes,
it's
important
to
highlight
it
up
front
I
can
feel
free
to
jump
in
if
you
guys
have
any
additional
thoughts
to
add
or
questions
about
this.
This
topic.
H
F
A
A
Yeah
yeah-
maybe
we
should
do
it
here
so
I
did
show
this
video
when
I
did
this
presentation
the
first
time
and
it
was
really
exciting
to
see
it
because
I'd
heard
about
this
humming
and
I'd
never
actually
seen
a
video
of
it
before
so.
I
will
share
this
link
and
I'll
share
this
entire
slide
deck.
Actually,
so
folks
can
actually
watch
this
or
I
guess
you
could
try
googling
it.
But
the
point
is
you
have
a
room
full
of
people
here
and
they're
asking
this
question:
do
you
support
or
do
you
yeah?
A
Do
you
support
adoption
of
this
this
proposal
or
that
proposal
and
and
what
happens?
Is
everyone
in
the
room
just
hums
to
show
support
so
no
explicit
voting?
One
of
the
reasons
they
use
humming
is
because
the
range
of
volume
that
a
person
can
hum
at
is
is
rather
limited,
and
so
most
people's
sort
of
maximum
home
is
quite
similar
to
one
another
yeah.
So
it's
it's!
A
So
the
reason
that
I
spend
so
much
time
talking
about
this
is
because
we
use
something
very,
very
similar
in
aetherium
governance
on
the
core
Deb's
calls
I
showed
some
images
of
those
a
little
while
ago
and
we'll
go
more
into
that
and
show
how
it
fits
into
it.
There
governance,
you
guys
want
a
home,
or
should
we
just
keep
moving.
A
Cool
sorry,
I'm
just
checking
the
software
to
make
sure
okay
I
think
we're
good
cool,
so
I'm
gonna
keep
moving.
So
another
important
point
about
aetherium
governance
is
that
it
all
happens
off
chain
with
one
exception,
and
that
is
the
gas
limit.
So
the
minor
is
actually
vote
in
protocol
as
part
of
the
protocol
to
adjust
the
gas
limit
up
or
down,
and
with
this
this
basically
has
to
do
with
the
throughput
of
the
network,
the
number
of
transactions
that
it
can
process
per
block
or
per
second,
and
so
that's
kind
of
quite
cool.
A
Not
everyone
is
aware
of
this.
The
mechanism
has
worked
quite
well.
It
was
raised
via
this
kind
of
on
chain
mechanism,
up
to
eight
million,
which
is
the
current
limit
at
the
end
of
2017,
when
the
network
first
became
congested
around
the
time
of
the
crypto
kitties
and
the
reason
it
stayed
at
that
limit
up
to
now
is
because
that's
sort
of
more
or
less
than
maximum
safe
limit
of
the
network.
A
Right
now,
while
we
work
on
scaling
it
more
technologically,
so
I
made
an
attempt
here
to
map
out
the
sort
of
governance
processes
or
mechanisms,
and
it
there
iam
and
I'm-
definitely
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
these.
But
the
point
I
want
to
make
sure
is
that
we
have
very
very
limited
formal
mechanisms
and
a
lot
of
informal
ones,
which
is
by
design.
A
Of
course,
I
listed
the
all
core
devs
on
both
of
these,
because,
while
kind
of
the
fact
that
it
exists
and
the
role
that
it
plays
in
governance
is
quite
formal
right,
these
calls
happen
every
two
weeks.
There
are
many
aspects
of
it
that
are
quite
informal,
such
as
exactly
who's
invited
to
join
the
calls.
A
A
Also
listed
some
of
the
stakeholder
groups
in
aetherium
governance
from
my
perspective,
so
this
is
a
bit
more
balanced
right.
We
have
this
set
of
relatively
formal
institutions
or
organizations.
Things
like
the
Syrian
foundation
consensus
priority
web
3
infrastructure
teams-
those
are
both.
Some
of
them
are
for-profit.
Some
of
them
are
nonprofits
companies
or
foundations,
and
then
we
have
quite
a
large
group
of
informal
groups
of
stakeholders,
and
this
this
is
growing,
which
I
think
is
quite
exciting.
A
I
included
kind
of
the
community
at
the
bottom
here
is
a
bit
of
a
catch-all
term,
a
couple
of
slides
here,
just
showing
a
little
bit.
What
the
CIP
process
looks
like
also
to
be
clear,
I
included
sources
for
these
in
the
notes
of
the
slides
I
should
have
included
them
in
the
slides
themselves.
I'll
try
to
make
those
more
explicit.
A
One
of
these
I
think
this
one
actually
comes
from
a
IP
one,
which
lays
out
the
EIP
process.
So
this
kind
of
shows
a
little
bit
of
the
flow
chart
here
of
the
different
states
through
which
a
IP
use
can
flow.
The
EIP
process,
which
stands
for
the
etherium
improvement
proposal
process,
is
the
one
formalized
governance
mechanism.
All
protocol
changes
have
to
flow
through
this
process.
It's
actually
modeled
after
the
Bitcoin
improvement
proposal
process,
which
is
in
turn
modeled
after
the
Python
improvement
proposal
process.
I
believe
this
slide
comes
from
Vlad
Zamfir.
A
A
The
point
is
that,
just
because
an
EIP
makes
it
to
the
approved
state,
there's
some
back
and
forth,
and
the
EAP
editors,
as
you
saw
on
this
slide,
can
help
get
that
to
a
final
state.
Just
because
an
EIP
is
final
does
not
mean
it's
necessarily
going
to
make
it
into
a
client.
Nor
is
it
the
case
that
only
finally
IP
is
make
it
into
client
implementations.
The
core
developers
actually
are
free
to
choose
any
EAPs.
A
They
want
to
implement
in
their
clients
and
in
the
interest
of
the
protocol
and
in
the
interest
of
avoiding
contentious,
hard
Forks.
It's
almost
always
been
the
case
historically,
that
VIPs
flew
through
that
EAP
process
and
reached
a
final
state
before
being
implemented
in
the
clients,
but
it's
not
necessarily
and
not
necessarily
always
the
case.
A
This
is
another
chart
which
I
believe
comes
from
Dan
Finlay
and
lays
out
a
very
similar
process.
The
main
thing
I
want
to
highlight
here
is
the
very
top
part,
but
this
shows
what
happens
if
that
consensus
formation
does
not
happen
right
and
there's
two
ways
we
can
arrive
at
a
contentious,
hard
fork.
A
Any
point
in
parallel
to
all
of
this
there's
a
whole
series
of
other
kind
of
calls
and
initiatives
that
have
sprung
up.
This
slide
comes
from
Hudson
Jameson,
so
thank
you,
Hudson
for
the
wonderful
Doge
iconography
here.
That's
always
important,
there's
actually
at
least
twice
as
many
of
these
regular
calls
that
are
happening
right
now,
which
is
very,
very
exciting,
to
see
again
more
more
inputs
into
more
more
voices
being
heard
and
more
important
to
the
process.
A
A
We
have
a
lot
of
forums,
so
this
is
what
the
fellowship
of
ethereal
magicians
look
like
online.
This
is
a
discourse
forum
where
the
technical
governance
of
aetherium
is
discussed
via
a
series
of
working
groups
which
you
can
see
listed
and
I
showed
this
before.
This
is
interesting
just
to
show
this
contrast.
A
This
is
what
the
magicians
look
like
in
person
there's
another
forum
and
initiative,
which
is
sprung
up
quite
recently
at
each
hub,
believe
it
sees
hub
that
IO-
and
this
is
explicitly
community
driven
non-technical
governance,
which
is
quite
exciting,
I'm,
very
excited
to
see
that
this
happens
now
and
this
exists
now.
So
this
is
discussing
all
the
other
aspects
of
governance,
the
kind
of
philosophical
economic,
ethical,
etc.
A
A
A
However
informal
this
was
a
survey
put
together
by
eva
palin,
recently
quite
intense
survey
reaching
out
to
the
community
and
going
quite
deep
and
asking
questions
around
things
like
legitimacy,
and
you
know
which
group
of
stakeholders
do
you
align
with
or
identify
with,
and-
and
you
know,
how
do
you
feel
that
a
theory
and
governance
is
going?
The
results
of
this
have
not
yet
been
announced,
I
think,
but
just
a
very,
very
important
initiative
and
I
want
to
highlight
again
a
lot
of
these
important
things
are
happening
in
a
grassroots
fashion.
A
A
It's
important
to
highlight
that
neither
of
these
has
a
formal
official
role
in
governance,
however,
because
they
employ
a
lot
of
the
people
and
support
a
lot
of
the
work
being
done
on
the
core
development
of
aetherium,
actually,
both
at
layer
one
and
particularly
in
the
case
of
consensus
at
layer
two
as
well,
and
also
control
a
lot
of
the
resources.
They
do
exert
a
lot
of
influence
over
at
their
own
governance.
A
And,
finally,
you
know
I
think
it's
important
to
highlight
and
and-
and
you
know,
just
kind
of
be
realistic,
but
the
fact
that
there
are
quite
a
few
people-
and
maybe
organizations
as
well-
that
are
exerting
influence
and
pulling
strings
from
behind
the
scenes.
I've
interacted
with
a
few
of
these
people
myself
over
the
past
couple
of
years
and
a
lot
of
them
choose
to
remain
anonymous
or
pseudonymous
and
sort
of
contribute
resources
towards
particular
initiatives
who
want
their
voices
to
be
heard.
A
A
lot
of
them
are
folks
who
were
involved
in
or
maybe
influential
in
aetherium
very
early
on
and
have
chosen
to
kind
of
stay
behind
stay
out
of
the
spotlight
so
to
speak.
But
you
know
this
is
also
closely
related
to
the
concept
of
tyranny
of
structure
lessness,
which
we'll
discuss
more
in
a
moment.
I
think
that's
the
last
slide.
I
have
one
if
you're
in
governance
today,
do
we
have
any
questions
or
comments
on
that
part.
A
A
I'm
gonna
go
through
what
I
believe
are
kind
of
some
of
the
biggest
challenges
that
aetherium
governance
is
facing
today,
and
so
this
was
input
into
the
Koala
working
group
meetings
last
week
because
we
used
at
the
Raymond
governance.
As
a
case
study
and
I'd
like
to
present
it's
funny,
I
think
I
was
asked
to
present
a
list
of
challenges.
A
I
actually
have
two
slides
of
them,
because
there's
quite
a
few
big
ones,
so
we'll
walk
through
most
of
these
through
a
series
of
case
studies,
I
think
it's
very
important
to
present
these
challenges
in
context.
So
the
first
one
parody
multi-sig
funds
recovery.
So
this
happened
in
late
2017
early
2018,
and
there
was
a
particular
piece
of
software
released
by
piratey
that
was
used.
A
I,
believe
it
had
something
like
500
wallets
in
it,
holding
both
ether,
as
well
as
other
tokens
held
by
a
number
of
stakeholders,
not
just
parody
that
the
single
largest
one
was
the
web
3
foundation.
But
there's
a
number
of
other
projects
that
were
holding
funds
in
this
wallet
because
of
a
bug
in
the
way
that
software
was
implemented.
There
was
actually
a
series
of
two
incidents
and
it
culminated
in
early
2018
with
effectively
all
the
funds
stored
in
that
wallet.
At
that
point
in
time,
it
was
well
over
a
hundred
million
u.s.
A
dollars
worth
of
funds,
those
funds
being
frozen
so
similar
to
what
happened
to
the
Dow
hack
in
2016.
The
difference
in
this
case
being
that
it
wasn't
that
an
attacker
was
able
to
kind
of
siphon
off
or
drain
those
funds.
They
were
just
locked
in
place
and
a
couple
of
the
concerns
that
this
highlighted
or
first
of
all,
concerns
of
legal
liability
on
the
part
of
core
developers.
A
This
is
a
gentleman
named
yo
hei
who,
up
until
this
point
until
2020
18,
was
a
very
prolific
contributor
to
the
etherium
core
protocol
and
he
made
the
decision
that
he
because
he
was
facing
severe
laia
legal
liability
concerns
in
his
native
country
in
Japan,
despite
the
fact
that
he
doesn't
live
in
Japan.
You
know
he
spoke
to
lawyers
got
legal
advice
on
this.
He
decided
that
he
could
no
longer
continue
to
contribute
to
the
the
protocol
and
in
this
particular
case
he
is
actually
an
EIP
editor.
A
So
if
you'll
recall
from
that
earlier
slide
right
there,
he
was
one
of
the
people
responsible
for
reviewing
EITS
and
marking
them
as
accepted
or
canonical.
There
was
an
EIP
put
forth,
EAP
nine,
nine
nine
to
execute
a
networked,
hard
fork
to
restore
those
funds,
and
he
felt
that
even
the
act
of
reviewing
that
EIP,
even
the
act
of
marking
it
as
approved,
could
open
him
up
to
liability
concerns.
So
this
has
become
a
big
topic
and
he's
no
longer
contributing
he's
now
working
on
another
project
at
layer
two.
A
So
this
is.
This
is
a
big
concern
on
the
part
of
core
developers.
This
is
a
more
recent
one
in
the
lexicon
of
is
another
very
well-known
well-respected
contributor
he's
been
spearheading
this
aetherium
1x
initiative
and
he
expressed
his
concern
quite
recently.
This
was
this
was
just
a
month
ago
saying
that
you
know
politicians,
quote-unquote
politicians
in
real
world
governance.
A
Have
this
thing
called
parliamentary
immunity
and
core
developers
in
aetherium
do
not
and
as
a
result,
he
is
again
very
concerned
about
his
own
liability
and
and
whether
you
know
basically
thinks
the
only
way
for
court
first
to
protect
themselves
from
it
today
is
by
hiding
behind
this
this.
This
quote
veil
of
decentralization
and
quite
interesting
topic,
cerium
1x,
as
I
mentioned
I'm
sorry
I
may
not
have
mentioned.
This
is
an
initiative
to
keep
the
existing
aetherium
Network
healthy
and
upgraded
and
maybe
scale
it
a
bit
in
parallel
to
the
etherium
2
initiatives.
A
So
this
was
a
series
of
meetings
held
on
the
sidelines
of
Devcon,
so
this
was
October
November
in
Prague
last
year
and
if
you
recognize
any
of
the
individuals
in
this
in
this
photo,
you'll
know
that
these
are
some
pretty
important,
pretty
influential
people
in
the
etherium
community.
The
main
point
I
want
to
make
here
is
that
you
know
we
don't
have
good
mechanisms
for
dealing
with
social
governance
in
aetherium
and
in
particular,
a
lot
of
the
questions
raised
increasingly
as
part
of
aetherium
governance
are
less
technical
and
more
social.
A
So,
in
the
context
of
etherium
linux,
this
is
things
like
state
rent
right.
It
turns
out
that
we've
been
under
pricing,
a
particular
resource,
which
is
the
ability
to
store
data
in
the
etherium
blockchain
indefinitely,
and
if
we
are
going
to
address
those
issues,
you
know
I'm
worried
that
without
some
mechanism
for
discussing
things
that
are
not
purely
technical,
that
that's
going
to
be
increasingly
good
challenge
anything
in
community.
This
also
touches
upon
the
fact
that
kind
of
decisions
happen.
A
A
So
prod
Pao
is
one
of
the
more
contentious
topics
in
aetherium
governance.
Right
now
it
stands
for
programmatic
proof-of-work
and
it's
in
a
nutshell,
an
effort
to
change
the
proof-of-work
mechanism
and
etherium
can
make
it
kind
of
more
decentralized
or
more
resistant
to
economies
of
scale
on
the
part
of
certain
minors
and
certain
types
of
mining.
Hardware.
I
think
this
raises
very
interesting
questions
about
things
like
due
process
and
this.
This
thing
that
we've
termed
decision
finality
so--even
is
is
another
well-known,
respected
member
of
the
community,
and
he
made
this
very
clear
statement.
A
He
said
I
actually
liked
Prague
Paulo
until
I
learned
that
the
decision
had
already
been
made
to
include
it
via
the
core
Debs
process,
and
he
felt
that
kind
of.
In
this
particular
case.
You
know
due
process
had
not
happened
properly
and
he
and
other
stakeholders
had
had
not
had
a
chance
to
participate
in
that
process
and
so
actually
knowing
when
a
decision
is
final
and
what
that
actually
means.
When
you
only
have
this
sort
of
rough
consensus
mechanism
is
quite
challenging.
A
Some
of
you
may
be
familiar
with
Glen,
while
he's
an
economist
at
Princeton,
who
you
know,
wrote
a
book
called
radical
markets
and
has
talked
quite
a
bit
about
ideas
and
governance
such
as
quadratic
voting,
Santi
I
know
that
you
guys
have
been
working
quite
closely
with
Glen
and
democracy
earth
to
actually
build
tools
around
without
a
voting.
That's
very
exciting,
probably
a
topic
of
a
separate
conversation,
but
I
did
want
to
include
this
quote
from
Glen
here,
because
I
really
identify
quite
strongly
with
it
rights.
A
He
says,
he's
very
skeptical
of
aetherium
and
I
guess
just
blockchains
in
general,
because,
while
it
formalizes
property,
it
doesn't
have
any
formal
conception
of
a
person
of
an
individual,
especially
a
unique
individual,
and
for
that
reason
it's
fundamentally
anti-democratic
and
plutocratic,
and
that
plays
out
in
various
ways.
Yes,
I
have
a
couple
of
slides
here
on
this,
so
this
is
a
something
called:
a
carbon
vote,
which
happened
quite
recently
again
around
prog
cow
and
the
way
this
works
is
anyone
who
holds
ether
can
use
that
ether
to
vote
for
or
against
a
particular
proposal.
A
So,
in
this
case,
these
are
people
voting
for
and
against
prog
pal.
Now
this
highlights
chakra
see
because
of
course
this
is
people
voting
using
tokens,
but
it
also
highlights
another
interesting
point,
which
is
voter
apathy,
so
around
3
million
ether
participated
in
this
vote,
but
that
represents
well
under
3
percent
of
the
overall
ether
in
existence.
So
that's
2
2
point
something
percent,
2.4
percent,
2.5
percent,
something
along
those
lines.
We've
seen
this
in
many
other
on
chain
voting
examples
in
India
if
broader
etherion
community.
C
C
A
Well,
I
mean
I,
guess
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
is
that
without
some
more
explicit
governance
mechanism,
you
know
it's
like
how
do
I
put
it
actually
in
the
positive
case,
it's
quite
easy.
It's
easy
to
say
that
a
decision
becomes
final
when
it's
implemented
in
the
protocol
and
people
have
upgraded,
because
at
that
point
effectively
it's
part
of
the
protocol.
Its
canonical
we
move
on
right.
A
You
know
it
failed
to
achieve
rough
consensus
in
the
community,
but
of
course,
the
people
who
are
impacted
by
it.
You
know
still
lobby
for
it
and
and
I
guess,
that's
you
know,
maybe
by
design
and
maybe
a
good
thing
or
maybe
not
depending
on
kind
of
how
you
how
you
think
governance
should
work.
Does
that
answer
the
question
yeah
Santi
I
think
you
were
did
I
hear
correctly?
Were
you
adding
something
a
moment
ago.
C
Yeah
I
was
just
gonna
mention
an
interesting
things
that
happening
there
in
the
Aragon
boat
was
a
strategy
played
by
a
single
boat
or
that
simply
waited
for
everyone
to
see
how
everyone
voted
on
the
different
issues
and
that
single
boater
simply
allocated
tokens
strategically
to
decide
the
outcome
of
this
of
three
critical
issues
in
the
election.
So
coin
boating.
Really
what
happens
with
it
is
that
usually
less
than
less
than
1%
of
the
individual
participants
actually
can
have
a
tremendous
influence
over
the
decision
making
process.
So.
A
C
Identity
or
without
some
way
of
having
a
more
egalitarian
way
of
making
the
decision
legitimate
with
the
democracy,
which
is
not
just
about
making
the
best
decision,
but
also
a
legitimacy,
really
matters
and
legitimacy
matters
when
the
risk
is
very
high.
The
higher
the
risk,
the
more
important
to
grasp
in
legitimacy
in
a
decision-making
process
so
yeah.
It
is
really
interesting
to
learn
from
each
one
of
these
implementations
and
I
learned
from
these
strategies
that
are
being
played
out.
A
Cool
thanks
for
sharing
yeah
legitimacy
is
a
a
big
question.
I
think
I
actually
have
a
slide
on
that
later.
So
I
think
we'll
talk
about
that,
a
bit
more,
let's
cool
it
to
keep
moving
here,
so
we
core
developers
of
course
care
a
great
deal
about
what
the
community
thinks,
and
so
you
hear
this
term
the
community
constantly.
A
The
problem
is
that
again,
with
lack
of
explicit
identity,
the
you
know
we
can
do
things
like
coin
votes,
but
you
know
we
also
end
up
doing
things
like
Twitter
polls,
because
we
want
to
hear
not
just
the
voice
of
the
plutocrats
and
avoid
some
of
the
issues
that,
for
example,
Santi
mentioned
a
moment
ago,
and
Twitter
polls
are,
of
course
suboptimal
for
a
whole
host
of
reasons
right.
They
can
be
gamed
or
manipulated
or
attacks
or
brigaded.
A
So
here's
an
example
of
a
coin
vote
that
was
sorry
about
of
a
Twitter
poll
that
was
done
on
a
topic
of
thought.
How
recently
so
prog
pal
also
highlights
interesting
questions
about
things
like
economics,
I,
believe
this
graph
comes
from
Eric,
Connor,
again,
I'm,
sorry,
if
I've
miss
attributed
any
of
these
things,
the
attributions,
the
proper
attributions
are
in
the
notes
of
the
slides.
This
shows
in
red
the
issuance
rate
of
ether
and
in
blue
the
total
supply.
This
is
quite
a
helpful
graph.
A
This
shows,
for
example,
the
most
recent
Constantinople
upgrade
when
we
reduced
issuance.
The
point
I
want
to
make
is
that
we
don't
actually
have
any
economists
and
you've
economists,
you
know
among
the
core
developers
or
or
that
have
any
formal
say
in
aetherium
governance
and
so
I.
Think,
as
we
face
more
and
more
complex
questions
around
things,
including
economics,
you
know
that's
something
that
we
want
to
talk
about,
whether
we
need
some
sort
of
economic
council,
for
example,
cool.
The
next
case
study
is
the
Constantinople
postponement.
A
So
this
raises
a
very
interesting
question
around
the
pace
of
innovation
and
things
like
invariance.
So
if
you'll
recall
there,
the
upgrade
was
supposed
to
happen
in
mid-january
and
at
the
very
last
minute,
I
think
it
was
something
between
36
and
48
hours
prior
to
when
the
upgrade
was
supposed
to
kick
in,
so
it
had
already
been
announced.
Everyone
had
already
upgraded
their
software.
We
were
kind
of
just
waiting
for
that
block
number
to
arrive.
A
This
is
a
thread
from
the
fellowship
of
ethereal
magicians
forum
on
this
topic,
if
you're
interested
in
reading
more
about
it,
so
we
myself
and
several
others,
launched
an
initiative
quite
recently
to
discuss
the
possibility
of
using
block
rewards
to
fund
something
like
a
developer
or
ecosystem
fund.
So
the
way
that
block
rewards
work
right
now
is
they're
used
exclusively
to
pay
miners
for
network
security.
Basically,
so
we
raised
this
question:
could
a
portion
of
those
block
rewards
be
used
to
fund
effectively
the
public
good
other
block
chains
such
as
D
cash?
A
Do
this
and
have
sometime
so
the
first
kind
of
challenge
this
highlights?
Is
this
question
of
openness
versus
closed
doors?
So
this
is
a
public
github
repository
where
we
got
some
quite
interesting
and
exciting
conversation
going
around
how
this
might
work
and
sort
of
you
know
answering
attempting
to
answer
some
of
the
governance
questions
that
it
raises.
A
We
want
to
kind
of
do
this
in
as
open
a
possible
as
sorry
as
open
a
fashion
as
possible,
but
it's
very
very
challenging
because
I
guess
I
feel
like
core
developers
or
in
this
particular
case.
This
was
not
even
core
developers
exclusively
just
all
the
people
participating
in
this
initiative.
You
know
if
we
make
these
decisions
or
have
these
conversations
in
private,
then
we
get
attacked
for
acting
like
a
cabal
and
you
know
effectively
not
being
open
and
participatory
in
the
kind
of
conversation
or
discussion
or
decision-making
process,
but
on
the
flipside.
A
If
we
try
to
have
these
conversations
in
public,
then,
as
was
the
case
here
with
this,
this
particular
initiative,
we
get
quite
fiercely
attacked.
You
know
I
really
want
to
emphasize
how
how
brutal
this
was.
This
particular
case
right,
we
have
a
I
mean
it
may
be
a
small
number
of
people,
but
but
very
very
vocal
community
members
who,
who
react
quite
negatively
and
quite
strongly
to
any
proposal
that
they
perceive
as
being
half-baked
or
illegitimate
or
not
well
thought
through.
A
So
this
is
a
very
core
attention
and
a
big
challenge
that
I
think
many
of
the
I
don't
know
decision
makers
or
influencers
in
the
æther
and
community
are
facing
so
here's
here's
a
particular
example.
Here
we
had
a
discussion
group,
a
telegram
group
where
a
lot
of
good
ideas
were
being
shared
and
anyway,
I
don't
want
to
go
in
the
details
of
this
particular
case,
but
it
was
messy
and
it
was
quite
frustrating.
A
You
know
closely
related
to
this
is
just
the
question
of
transparency
and
accountability
on
the
part
of
organizations
like
the
etherium
foundation
that
have
historically
operated
with
very,
very,
very
little
of
either
of
views.
So
this
this
gentleman
Eric
Connor,
made
a
proposal.
I
believe
this
is
on
the
east
hub
community
forum,
I
think
it's
community
youth
abajo
suggesting
what
minimum
viable
if
you're
in
foundations
spencey,
would
look
like
so
again.
Just
on
this
topic
of
transparency,
I
think
transparency
is
important
for
legitimacy,
which
Asante
mentioned
a
moment
ago,
very,
very
important
in
our
governance.
A
There
really
is
no
other
word
for
it
by
many
members
of
the
community
on
channels,
including
Twitter
and
reddit,
and
in
fact,
faced
things
as
severe
as
threats
of
violence
against
himself
and
his
family
and
I.
Think
that
you
know
we
can
all
agree
that
that
sort
of
behavior
is
inappropriate,
but
that
in
online
forums
you
know
where
you
are
anonymous
or
pseudonymous.
Unfortunately,
these
sorts
of
things
happen
and
it
got
so
severe
that
offeree
decided
to
stop
contributing
to
aetherium
entirely.
So
this
is
a
second
case.
A
I
showed
the
case
of
the
gentleman
and
yo
each
year
earlier
right.
You
know
we
have
very,
very
very
limited
numbers
of
people
contributing
especially
at
the
core
layer
to
aetherium,
and
so
this
is
Hudson
another
respected
member
of
the
community
kind
of
responding
to
what
happened
to
a
free.
You
can
see
here
that
his
tweet
was
deleted.
In
fact,
he
chose
to
delete
his
entire
Twitter
in
response
to
this
is
very,
very
frustrating
and
I
think
that
this
may
fall
under
the
purview
of
governance.
A
A
So
it's
pretty
much
as
ad-hoc
as
you
can
get
on
the
sidelines
of
the
DEFCON
conference
in
Prague
in
in
the
autumn
of
last
year,
discussing
I,
guess
just
kind
of
things:
the
etherium
1x
initiative-
and
you
know,
when
I
learned
recently
about
this
concept
of
the
tyranny
of
structure
lessness.
When
I
read
that
initial
essay
by
Joe
Freeman,
which
was
published
in
the
70s,
it
literally
sent
shivers
down
my
spine
because
I
identified
so
strongly
with
aspects
of
it.
A
I'll
leave
it
to
anyone
who
is
unfamiliar
with
this
topic
to
kind
of
watch
or
or
sorry
to
read
that
essay
on
their
own.
But
what
it
sort
of
says
is
that,
in
the
absence
of
any
of
these
more
explicit
decision-making
structures,
there
is
no
such
thing
as
a
lack
of
structure,
and
so
what
happens?
Is
people
kind
of
naturally
form
these
kind
of
organic
structures
by
which
they
communicate
with
one
another
and
decisions
get
made,
and
this
happens
you
know
very,
very
much
in
the
etherion
community
today.
A
So
we
have
groups
of
people
who
happen
to
you,
know
more
or
less
look
alike
and
sound
alike
who
happen
to
know
each
other
and
trust
each
other
from
their
daily
work.
Who
you
know
this
is
very
natural
process.
I'm
not
suggesting,
there's
anything
wrong
with
a
group
of
core
developers
sitting
down
and
discussing
the
protocol,
but
when
it
gets
to
a
point
where
things
like
resources
are
being
allocated
or
decisions
are
being
made,
it
naturally
raises
this
question.
A
You
know
who
doesn't
does
not
have
a
voice
in
this
process,
and
and
can
we
be
more
explicit
and
and
enfranchise
a
greater
set
of
community
participants
and
stakeholders
in
aetherium
and
and
what
would
it
response
to
tyranny
or
structuralist?
Look
like
I
think
this
is
probably
the
single
biggest
challenge
that
we
face
in
aetherium
governance
today.
A
So
so
Vlad
many
of
you
may
be
familiar
with
him
right
he's
he's
a
researcher
who
has
done
quite
a
bit
of
thinking
and
writing
as
well
on
a
topic
of
governance.
You
know
ask
this
very
interesting
and
somewhat
provocative
question
recently
on
Twitter
and
if
you
read
through
the
responses
to
this
they're
quite
interesting,
but
I
want
to
highlight
that
I.
Don't
think
anyone
had
any
very
good
answers
to
this
question.
So
I
think
it
is
a
question
that
we
struggle
with
and
santi.
A
This
goes
directly
back
to
the
question
you
raised
earlier
in
the
context
of
things
like
voter
apathy,
like
what
is
our
source
of
legitimacy
in
a
community
like
aetherium,
where
we
don't
have
a
constitution
and
we
don't
have
a
you
know
a
monarch
or
you
know,
do
we
even
have
something
like
a
social
contract?
It's
a
bit!
It's
a
bit
unclear,
but
it's
a
very
interesting
question
to
ask.
A
Vlad
has
also
asked
provocative
questions
like
this
one
and
I
think
one
of
the
great
things
I
began
to
learn
from
the
other
koala
participants.
Is
that
there's
you
know
a
thousand
years
or
I
guess
multiple,
thousands
of
years
of
thought
that
have
gone
in
answering
questions
such
as
this?
If
we
are
unafraid
of
engaging
with
legal
scholars
and
and
philosophers
and
opening
textbooks,
and
things
like
that,
so
we
should
do
more
of
that.
G
Yeah
I
think
the
question
on
legitimacy
is
getting
being
getting
raised
over
and
over
again,
but
if
there
are
any
thoughts
on
what
might
be
the
sources
of
this
legitimacy,
I
mean
looking
for
standard
definitions
in
political
philosophy.
Is
it
consent
of
participants,
or
maybe
the
desirable
outcomes,
or
maybe
fairness
of
the
process?
Things
like
that
I.
A
A
A
D
Anya,
I
hope,
I'm,
not
jumping
something
over
you
in
here
and
today,
with
the
definition
of
legitimacy
which
really
depended
on
for
specific
property,
so
determinacy
like
a
readily
ascertainable
content
of
a
rule,
symbolic
validation,
meaning
somebody
in
charge
says
yes,
this
is
the
rule,
coherence,
meaning
that
a
rule
is
consistently
or
generally
applied
and
adherence,
meaning
that
it
is
sort
of
it
connect
to
other
rules
in
the
system
and
make
sense
sort
of
in
the
big
picture.
But
but
it
does
make
me
want
to
ask
the
question
of
you.
D
Lane
so
I
mean
I,
guess,
I,
sort
of
think
I've
found
it
hard
over
the
years
to
describe
what
legitimacy
is
in
a
really
broad
term,
as
it
applies
to
all
kinds
of
different
organizations.
I
think
there
are
perceptions
and
legitimacy
and
I
think
they're
really
important
so
like
what
the
people
in
the
ecosystem
actually
would
care
about
or
would
would
recognize
as
being
important
values.
It's
really
to
me
what
legitimacy
comes
down
to,
and
so
I
was.
D
A
A
D
I
mean
I,
guess
I,
just
maybe
I
just
wanted
to
narrow
down
what
we're
talking
about.
When
we
talk,
legitimacy
and
and
I
was
hoping,
you
could
talk
about
like
the
kinds
of
values
that
people
within
the
Assyrian
beacon
system
care
about,
but
thinking
about
things
like
Szabo's
law
or
thinking
about
the
value
of
decentralization
or
whatever
it
like
some
of
the
things
that
would
make
you
know,
decisions
look
legitimate
to
the
people
within
because
this
kind
of
question
yeah.
A
That's
an
excellent
question.
You
know
I
I
guess
like
the
main
thing
I
want
to
say
in
response
to
that
is
that
we
struggle
a
lot
with
this,
and
this
goes
back
to
that.
First
set
of
kind
of
pictures,
I
showed
which
was
aetherium
social
evolution.
You
know
I
I
suspect
early
on
when
etherium
was
a
very
small
group
of
people
who
knew
each
other,
and
you
know,
there's
certainly
a
high
degree
of
homily
in
those
situations,
so
they're
people
who
tend
to
share
values
as
well.
A
What
how
would
these
decisions
have
to
be
made
and
what
sort
of
decisions
would
have
to
be
made
for
them
to
be
viewed
as
legitimate?
You
know
on
the
part
of
the
broader
community
and
this
again
all
the
questions
we've
talked
about
right.
We
don't,
we
don't
have
strong,
signaling
tools.
You
know
we
have
this
very
ill-defined
term,
the
community
which
which
we
don't
we
don't
know
exactly
kind
of
which
you
know
groups
of
stakeholders
that
includes,
etc.
A
I
I
feel
pretty
strongly
that
I
know
what,
like
a
lot
of
my
fellow
core
developers,
feel
and
and
and
that's
largely
what
we
spoke
about
at
the
workshop.
So
you
know
we
care
a
great
deal
about
these
centralization.
We
care
a
great
deal
about
decisions
being
made
that
are
strongly
technically
competent.
G
Like
and
I
mean
I
think
quite
recently,
in
the
event
of
Billings
hack,
there
was
a
discussion
on
Twitter
again
about
core
values
on
D
theorem
and
our
block
chains,
which
also
raised
this
exact
point.
Whether
immutability
and
I
mean
the
suggestion
of
the
evidence.
Hack
was
to
reward
Bitcoin,
which
was,
of
course
not
feasible,
but
I
mean
it
hit
a
lot
of
started
a
lot
of
heated
discussions,
including
people
from
a
Syrian
community.
So
what
do
you
say
that
immutability
is
might
be
one
of
the
core
values.
A
A
Think
a
mutability
look
I
think
there
are
underlying
values
at
question
there,
like
fairness
and
transparency
like
just
just
as
one
example.
If
it
were
the
case
that
changes
could
be
made
to
the
ledger,
what
we
call
in
a
regular
state
transition
rates,
that's
exactly
what
happened
in
the
case
of
the
etherium
etherion
classic
fork
after
the
dow
hack
in
2016
like
it.
That
itself
raises
questions
about
things
like
due
process
and
transparency,
etc,
and
so
immutability
is
kind
of
I.
Don't
know
one
way
of
thinking
about
it.
A
It's
a
bit
of
a
safety
mechanism
right
because
if
you
don't
have
due
process
or
transparency
or
a
legitimate
decision-making,
etc,
then
at
least
you
can
rely
on.
You
know
that
history
being
intact.
Does
that
sort
of
make
sense
yeah,
but
to
turn
that
around?
Maybe
if
we
do
have
a
legitimate
decision-making
process
with
do
due
process
etc,
then
maybe
it
maybe
it
would
be
viewed
as
legitimate
if
kind
of
changes
were
made
and
we
were
to
kind
of
violate
immutability
in
certain
cases.
A
A
Cool-
let's
move
to
this
next
section
and
get
to
the
interesting
stuff,
so
I'm
not
gonna,
spend
much
time
on
this,
but
but
one
of
the
things
that
I
was
asked
to
do
as
part
of
this
presentation
was
to
tie
Syrian
governance
and,
in
particular
the
sort
of
challenges
and
case
studies
that
we
talked
about
to
kind
of
real
world
fields
and,
in
particular,
some
of
the
working
groups
that
were
present
in
the
koala
meeting.
So
again,
I'll
share
the
slide
deck
later.
A
These
are
incredibly
dense
and-
and
we
could
spend
quite
a
bit
of
time
on
each
of
these,
but
I
just
want
to
point
out
that,
like
when
you
open
Pandora's
box
of
existing,
you
know
prior
work,
academic,
work,
literature,
etc
on
topics
such
as
these
legal,
political
theory,
etc.
There's
fascinating
questions
that
get
raised
about
very
basic
things,
like
sources
of
authority,
legitimacy
which
we're
talking
about
social
norms.
You
know
property
rights,
things
like
a
fork
is
a
fork.
You
know
considered
legal
like
to
Vlad's
earlier
question:
is
it
a
revolution?
A
What
does
that
mean
exactly
fascinating
questions
about
identity
and
sovereignty?
We
talked
a
little
bit
about
this
in
the
context
of
Glenn
Wiles
comments
about
lack
of
formalized
identity.
Another
topic
that
we
discussed
was
dispute.
Resolution
fascinating.
The
one
I
want
to
highlight
here
is
the
last
bullet
point
here
like
mercy
right
in
in
in
real
world
decision-making.
A
A
Like
are
they
commons?
Should
they
be
governed
like
commons,
and
I
won't
go
through
each
of
these
either?
But
if
we
do
think
of
aetherium
or
similar
blockchains
as
a
commons,
and
if
we
do
believe
that
Ostrom
recommendations
here
hold
value,
then
we
have
a
lot
of
work
to
do
because,
as
you
can
see,
we
sort
of
have
failed
to
check
most
of
these
boxes
and
I
think
that
this
may
be
again
an
interesting
lens
through
which
to
view
some
of
the
challenges
we're
facing
in
aetherium
governance.
Today,.
A
A
I
think
a
really
good
place
to
start
is
by
articulating
things
like
our
values
and
our
goals
figuring
out
what
we
stand
for
as
a
community.
This
is
very
challenging
and
it
come
in
and
be
like
the
etherium
community,
which
is
which
is
very
diverse,
and
it's
very
hard
to
kind
of
draw
lines
around
it.
But
so
interesting
to
ask
questions
like
you
know:
would
there
be
value
in
having
something
like
a
charter
or
Constitution
or
for
four
segments
of
the
community?
A
To
kind
of
you
know
kind
of
align
themselves
around
things
like
values,
making
governance
power
structures
be
more
explicit
to
battle
the
tyranny
of
structure
lessness,
which
we
talked
about
before
I,
really
like
the
sort
of
local
autonomous
kind
of
permissionless
organizing
on
the
part
of
different
groups
of
stakeholders?
That's
happened.
We
spoke
about,
for
example,
the
fellowship
of
theory,
magicians
I,
think
that's
the
best
example
of
this
to
date,
there's
been
quite
a
few
recently.
A
Another
one
is
called
the
cat
herders,
which
is
a
sort
of
tongue-in-cheek
name,
but
it
refers
to
a
group
that
is
focused
more
on
things
like
project
management
that
again
has
just
arisen
as
a
dowel.
It's
sort
of
a
canonical
Dow,
it's
just
a
loose
affiliation
of
individuals
around
the
world
who
you
know
are
contributing
to
aetherium
and
and
their
voices
being
heard.
I
think
this
is
quite
interesting
right.
A
I
think
that
the
point
to
highlight
here
is
that
neither
purely
centralized
nor
decentralized
governance
mechanisms
I
think
are
sufficient
in
their
own
right
and
so
I.
Think.
A
very,
very
interesting
idea
to
explore
here
is
how
we
can
have
both
elements
and
kind
of
take
advantage
of
the
better
parts
of
each
of
these
right,
so
sort
of
centralize
things.
So
the
etherion
foundation
is
a
good
example
of
this
that
exists
in
the
real
world.
Have
a
foot
on
the
ground
so
to
speak.
A
That
can
be
held
accountable
to
decentralized
on
chain
things
like
those
and
so
how
dowas
can
hold
them
accountable,
but
then
how
that's
the
centralized
pieces
can
support
the
things
like
the
Dow's.
By
doing
things
like
you
know,
managing
or
raising
funds
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
that
decentralization
is
a
journey
and
needs
to
maybe
be
done
incrementally,
and
so.
A
A
very
interesting
example
of
this
in
aetherium
is
like
a
conversation
around
how
one
might
be
centralize,
something
like
the
etherium
foundation,
for
example,
turn
it
into
a
more
of
a
dao
over
time
and
just
celebrating
kind
of
early
winds
around
decentralization.
So
you
know
some
of
the
things
like
the
fellowship
of
ethereal
magicians
that
have
already
found
some
degree
of
success.
A
I
think
we
have
a
lot
to
learn
from
experts
in
prior
art,
so
folks,
such
as
the
koala
participants,
I
think
that
we
should
not
hesitate
to
take
good
ideas
from
all
projects,
including
bad
projects.
I
think
that
there
are
examples
of
other
blockchain
projects
in
particular
that
the
etherium
community
sometimes
tends
to
write
off
as,
for
example,
not
completely
decentralized,
but
I
think
that
there
are
interesting
experiments
being
run
in
things
like
governance
and
by
other
projects,
and
we
should
look
to
them
and
learn
from
them.
A
You
know
I,
think
collecting
signals
and
running
experiments
is
not
especially
controversial.
I
think
move
fast
and
break
things
is
probably
very
controversial
and,
if
they're
in
community
so
I
guess
the
question
I
want
to
ask
here:
is
you
know
how
do
we
do
that?
How
do
we
continue
to
innovate
as
a
community
and
as
a
platform
without
breaking
too
many
things?
So
can
we
run
experiments
on
side
chains?
Can
we
run
experiments
on
new
chains?
A
This
is
such
a
big
topic
and
I
could
spend
I.
Think
we
could
all
spend
hours
discussing
and
debating
this
particular
topic.
I
really
just
want
to
touch
upon
it
here,
very
briefly,
I
think
again,
this
goes
back
to
that
early
set
of
slides
and
images.
I
showed
you
know,
I
personally
perceive
it
there
iam
to
be
a
platform
for
all
humans
everywhere.
A
A
You
know
things
like
democracy
and
voting
etcetera
identity
systems,
I
think
it's
really
crucial
that
we
have
as
broad
a
set
of
you,
know,
inputs
and
just
hear
as
broad
an
array
of
voices
in
the
governance
process
today
as
possible
and
I
think
that
things
like
the
tyranny
or
structure.
Let's
just
make
this
very
difficult
because,
as
you
saw
on
some
of
the
images
I
showed,
you
know
tends
to
be
a
small
group
of
people
who
again
kind
of
look
alike
and
sound
alike
and
know
and
trust
one.
Another
and
I
do
think.
A
All
right
again
big
important
topic:
we
should
devote
a
future
conversation
to
this
alone.
I
want
to
spend
just
a
quick
moments.
Appreciating
the
important
work
that's
being
done
on.
Dow
is
right
now,
so
you
know
I
think
everyone
is
aware
that
the
original
Dow,
the
one
created
by
this
Lockett
team,
was
launched
almost
exactly
three
years
ago
in
2016,
and
you
know,
because
of
what
happened.
A
A
I
have
a
few
particular
ones
highlighted
here,
so
DX
Dow,
which
is
being
launched
in
collaboration
between
neurosis
and
douse
tack,
well,
lock,
Dow,
as
well
as
a
new
initiative
by
a
team
called
meta
cartel,
which
is
forking
more
lock,
Dow
launching
another
Dow
to
focus
more
on
kind
of
layer.
Two
application
usability
type
initiatives.
Aragon
has
also
announced
that
they're
working
on
things
like
a
doubt
to
fund
ecosystem
support,
ecosystem
project
infrastructure,
etc.
A
So
the
point
I
want
to
make
here
is
that
those
are
not
just
about
allocating
resources,
but
they
are
actually
little
experiments
in
governance,
because
each
of
these
dowse
needs
to
figure
out
how
to
collect
resources
and
govern
those
resources,
and
so
this
makes
me
quite
hopeful
for
the
future,
with
Ihram
governance.
I
think
a
very
important
work
is
being
done
here.
The
most
important
thing
to
highlight,
though,
is
all
of
this
is
happening
at
layer.
Two.
A
A
This
is
a
snapshot
of
our
working
group,
focused
on
governance
held
inside
a
really
lovely
old
chapel
in
Italy
and
yeah,
so
an
important
disclaimer.
So
this
is
just
a
very
quick
sneak
peek
of
some
of
the
work
that
was
done.
The
group
will
be
releasing
a
much
more
detail
of
a
report
later
and
I.
Think
a
lot
of
the
ideas
that
were
discussed
require
require
some
context.
The
findings
are
very
much
a
work
in
progress.
I
want
to
emphasize
that
this
is
just
a
set
of
ideas
shared
by
a
group
of
individuals.
A
This
is
not
sort
of
an
official
koala
report.
You
know
these
are
things
that
are
based
on
best
practice
in
other
fields
and
we
don't
sort
of
know
for
sure
whether
or
to
what
extent
or
how
well
they
work
in
a
areum.
What
set
her
up,
let
me
just
check
who's
on
our
call
right
now,
so
we're
very
fortunate
to
have
Christy
on
the
call
as
well
and
Christy.
If
you
want
to
jump
into
any
of
this,
please
feel
free.
D
E
So
what
we've
got
here
is
basically
on
the
x-axis
or
yeah
across
we
listed
the
state
Calder's
or
yeah
we
kind
of
brainstormed,
with
the
help
of
Blaine
all
of
the
etherium
stakeholders.
We've
got
a
Dream,
Foundation
consensus
and
you
can
read
across
if
anything's
unclear,
please
just
jump
in
and
ask
and
then
on
the
y-axis
going
down.
We
listed
what
is
governed
so
it
got
protocol
networking
resources,
the
foundation,
resources,
client,
synapse
and
then
essentially,
we
coded
this
with
colors.
E
A
That's
awesome.
Thank
you,
Phoebe.
The
the
one
thing
I
want
to
add
here
is
that,
at
a
glance
already,
you
can
begin
to
see
some
of
the
kind
of
power
dynamics
in
ethereum,
which
I
think
is
what's
so
interesting
about
an
exercise
like
this.
So
in
particular
you
can
see
that
organizations
like
EF
and
consensus
will
have
a
great
deal
of
governing
power.
Let's
say
today
where,
as
organizations
like
the
ethereal
magicians,
it's
much
more
aspirational
I
think
we
all
kind
of
feel.
C
E
A
D
Think
I
mean
this
is
such
a
great
map,
CD
and
I.
Think
it's
really
helpful
in
so
many
ways
and
went
in
national
conversations.
Last
week
you
spend
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
like
what
the
z-axis
would
be
considered
like
several
different
potential
candidates
for
z-axis.
If
we
were
going
to
do
a
3d
picture
but
I,
but
when
I
see
this
I
mean
maybe
it's
my
legal
training,
but
but
one
of
the
things
that
is
kind
of
all
like
embedded
across
this
map,
but
isn't
really
visible
anywhere.
Is
the
question
of
liability
right?
D
So
there's
a
lot
there's
stuff
about
resource
allocation,
which
is
super
important
and
really
looks
at
sort
of
you
know
who
has
control
over
human
resources
that
there's
no,
you
know,
but
but
the
part
that
that
we
couldn't
figure
on
how
to
put
on
this
map
and
and
then
sort
of
an
overhang
is,
are
some
of
the
questions
that
Layne
alluded
to
in
the
earlier
slides
around
and
who's
got
the
responsibilities
for
making
choices.
That
can
sometimes
seem
to
be,
you
know
quite
political
and
how
do?
A
That's
an
awesome
point,
thanks
for
raising
that
point,
yeah
I
think
any
attempt
to
take
something
as
complex
and
dynamic
as
governance
of
something
like
a
theory.
I
mean
reduce
it
down
to
you
know
only
two
dimensions
or
even
three
dimensions
is
sort
of
necessarily
reductionist
in
some
way
and
there's
so
many
other
interesting
dimensions
we
could
explore
here.
A
Thanks
for
Liam,
that's
very
true,
so
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
if
you
can
see
it
on
this
previous
slide.
I
guess
you
can't
yeah.
We
literally
ran
out
of
space
on
the
whiteboard,
and
we
kind
of
realized
that
there's
like
two
or
three
or
four
or
five
other
groups
of
stakeholders
that
we'd
like
to
factor
in
there's
just
many
of
them.
So
it
would
be
great
to
kind
of
expand
this
horizontally,
more
and
I'm
sure
there's
others
we're
still
missing
here
in
the
interest
of
time,
I'm
going
to
move
a
bit
more.
A
So
another
thing
we
did
was
try
to
map
things
like
the
formal
governance
process.
So
this
should
look
a
little
bit
similar
to
some
of
those
images.
I
showed
early
on.
This
was
an
attempt
to
be
a
little
bit
more
explicit
about
how
governance
of
the
protocol
works
and
I
added,
for
example,
my
best
estimates
of
like
the
percentage
of
VIPs
that
make
it
through
each
of
these
stages.
Also,
this
this
arrow,
that's
highlighted
in
red
here,
makes
explicit
something.
A
I
said
earlier,
when
I
first
showed
some
other
flowcharts,
which
is
that
the
core
developers
actually
have
the
ability
to
include
any
EIP,
even
one
that
hasn't
sort
of
flown
through
that
sorry
flowed
through
that
official
approval
process,
so
I
think
it
worked
like.
This
is
also
very
helpful
just
for
myself
clarifying
the
way
governance
works.
Today
we
talked
as
part
of
the
stakeholder
mapping
process
about
things
like
paying
points
on
the
part
of
different
groups
of
stakeholders.
A
A
That's
a
great
question
William,
so
I
think
in
in
the
slides
after
this
there's.
We
will
touch
upon
very
briefly
a
couple
of
the
group's
recommendations
but
I'm
calling
it
a
sneak
peek,
but
there
is
a
much
longer
set
of
recommendations
that
we
tentatively
came
up
with
and
those
need
to
be
presented
in
the
context
of
a
report.
So
our
goal
is
to
is
to
do
that
shortly
in
the
in
the
form
of
a
report.
A
So
Kristy
something
that
I
believe
you
mentioned
that
that
struck
me
and
really
stuck
with
me
from
our
meetings
last
week.
I
believe
it
was
regarding
the
use
of
the
word
enlightened
right
and
so
I
had
mentioned
that
to
me,
aetherium
represents
you
know
it's
not
that
a
theorem
is
kind
of
above
or
beyond
or
outside
of
politics.
A
It's
that,
like
it
represents
a
chance
at
a
more
enlightened
form
of
politics,
which
was
how
I
kind
of
phrase
that
it
and,
from
my
perspective,
that
means
building
better
human
institutions,
things
that
are
more
open,
participatory,
just
fair,
transparent,
etc
and
and
Krista.
You
responded
by
saying,
if
I
remember
correctly,
that
what
the
Enlightenment
was
you
know
was
specifically
a
process,
a
political
process
that
that
you
know
played
out
over
many
years.
C
D
Probably
subject
to
some
sort
of
clarifications
by
people
who
know
more,
but
yes,
I
mean
that's
much
I
can
say
with
certainty,
and
that
is
the
Enlightenment
was
in
the
18th
century.
It
was,
and
it
really
wants
the
emergence
of
a
series
of
values
which
were
focused
on
the
idea
that
individuals
have
rights.
But
you
know
all
human
beings
are
created
equal.
The
ideas
that
you
see
in
the
Declaration
of
Independence
in
the
United
States
really
comes
out
of
this
idea
and
generated
things
like
the
idea
of
one-person
one-vote.
D
D
A
Incredibly
helpful.
Thank
you.
You
said
this
far.
Better
than
I
could
have,
but
I
just
I
mean
again
I
just
want
to
say
that
that
that
particular
thought
that
you
expressed
like
really
really
really
stuck
with
me
I
think
it
was
probably
my
biggest
takeaway,
my
single
biggest
takeaway
from
the
Qualla
workshop,
and
that
was
specifically
that,
while
I
and
I
think
many
others
naively
think
of
etherium,
as
as
sort
of
you
know,
a
platform
for
enlightened
governance,
I
mean
it
has
potential
to
be.
A
There's
no
question
about
that,
but
we're
not
there
yet
and
just
as
you
said
a
moment
ago,
to
the
extent
that
the
decisions
are
being
made
by
a
small
number
of
people
via
you
know,
kind
of
processes,
they're
anything
but
transparent
and
inclusive
and
participatory
and
and
and
things
like
tribalism
are
rife
we're
very
far
from
enlightened
today.
So
we
have
a
lot
of
work
to
do.
A
Some,
oh
boy,
I'm
choosing
my
words
very
carefully
here,
some
sort
of
structures
right
that
it
would
allow
us
to
make
governance
slightly
more
explicit
I
want
to
emphasize
that
by
putting
up
an
image
like
this
I'm,
not
suggesting
that
we
kind
of
want
Unchained
governance
in
aetherium,
it's
not
something
that
I
think
the
community
wants.
It's
not
something
that
I'm
personally
excited
about,
but
maybe
even
as
a
signalling
tool.
A
Would
it
be
interesting
to
see
different
groups
of
stakeholders
such
as
the
ones
I
have
here,
miners
or
adopt
developers
or
investors
or
theory,
magicians,
etc,
align
into
affinity
groups
represented
by
dows
and
possibly
have
some
sort
of
a
scenario
where
some
resources
can
flow
down
into
those
groups
and
voice
or
signals
can
flow
up,
and
so
we're
sort
of
having
dows
talk
to
dowse.
This
is
kind
of
the
the
prototypical
one
prototypical
model
of
theory
and
governance
that
emerged
through
the
block
rewards
funding
proposal.
A
Don't
if
anyone
on
the
call
has
any
thoughts
about
what
this
could
look
like,
but
I
guess
the
last
thing
I'll
say
here
is
that
to
some
extent
this
is
already
happening,
informally
right.
So
it's
very
much
the
case
that
we
do
have
these
groups
such
as
the
ethereal
magicians
that
that
are
beginning
to
kind
of
self,
organize
and
I.
Think
that's
great.
A
D
D
You
know,
recommendations
or
solutions
in
places
where
the
normal
regulatory
butchers
are
not
working,
often
in
areas
where
there
are
private
and
public
interests
that
are
overlapping,
often
an
interest
where
there
a
sort
of
a
number
of
diverse
communities.
We're
trying
to
you
know
who
are
engaged
for
the
problem
and
they
all
have
to
fit
priorities
and
they're,
not
agreeing
and
and
and
often
in
places
where.
But
the
problem
at
hand
is
actually
really
quite
complicated
or
maybe
even
wicked
and
and
the
best
example
I
can
see
online
of
like
an
early
stage.
D
D
Quick
answer
like
how
do
you
manage
your
you
know,
dyslexic
second
graders
reading
schedule
or
whatever,
and
then
you
there's
also
the
underlying
information.
That's
all
there
so
so
let
me
try
and
explain
how
it
might
actually
work
as
a
governance
mechanism
and
how
it
could
maybe
be
useful
in
a
context
like
ethereum.
So
so
clearinghouses
often
come
up,
and
you
know
they
can
be
much
more
regulatory
than
the
what
works
Clearinghouse
is
they
can
have
all
kinds
of
powers.
D
Both
you
know
the
diversity
and
the
innovation
of
the
experiments
that
are
being
taken
and
that
are
being
carried
out.
But
then,
meanwhile,
if
you
have
nothing
but
decentralized
groups,
you
run
into
your
own
problems
right
like
there's
no
way
for
them
to
talk
to
each
other,
then
every
decentralized
food
can
end
up
with
a
sort
of
lack
of
information.
Maybe
it's
reinventing
the
wheel.
They
may
not
have
the
expertise
they
need.
D
The
model
ends
up
not
being
scalable
like
you,
never
sort
of
get
anywhere,
and
there
are
problems
with
record-keeping
and
sort
of
collective
intention
and
collective
identity
and
so
on,
and
so
the
idea
of
a
clearinghouse
is
really
to
reflect
back
practices
from
these
decentralized
groups
back
to
themselves
right,
so
just
sort
of
collect
information
from
all
these
dense
decentralized
groups
and
like
a
depositor,
a
repository
for
experience
so
usually
in
a
clearinghouse
they'd,
be
somebody
who
can
curate
the
information.
But
people
don't
have
this.
Not
deflected
information
done
right.
D
It's
not
just
a
pile
of
content
that
people
have
to
come
soon
themselves,
and
so
it
would
require
local
units
to
produce
information
and
give
it
to
the
Clearinghouse
that
would
be
sort
of.
Like
the
you
know,
the
price
of
admission,
but
then
in
return,
the
Clearing
House
would
provide
a
bunch
of
an
analytic
rounds.
You
know
benchmarking
where
people
are
at
what
best
practices
are
and
really
sort
of
trying
to
understand.
D
What's
working,
what's
not,
who
may
have
prior
experience
with
a
particular
problem
that
can
be
shared
and
so
on
in
a
transparent
way
right
so
again
they
produce
sort
of
insights,
but
all
of
the
underlying
information
is
still
there.
So
you,
you
can
look
at
the
actual
guess
of
it.
If
you
want-
and
you.
D
A
way
you
can
almost
think
of
a
clearinghouse,
it's
kind
of
like
a
rolling
audit
right,
where
it
sort
of
continually
disrespected
by
the
experience
and
digest
information
coming
up
from
news
decision-making
groups,
and
you
know
if
some
of
it
can
be
autonomous,
it
can
be
human,
it
can
be
a
mix
of
them.
Both
I
mean
certainly
the
one
so
far
that
we
have
are
human,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
has
to
be
that
way
and
then,
depending
on
how
serious
you
you
know,
it
helps
you
for
the
comprehensive.
D
D
And-
and
you
know,
some
of
the
literature
talks
about
ways
to
create
races
to
the
top,
so
that
everybody
makes
more
progress,
but
I
think
the
really
important
part
of
it
is,
and
you
know
that
that
ended
that
that
all
the
decentralized
units
would
have
to
be
willingness
willing
to
share
information.
They
do
required
you
right.
D
They
don't
have
to
identify
themselves,
they
could
be
anonymous
or
pseudonymous,
but
they
have
to
be
like
willing
to
participate,
and
then
the
Clearinghouse
ought
to
have
the
capacity
to
sort
of
roll
that
information
back
into
collective
learning
and
then,
depending
on
some
of
the
will
of
group,
the
collectivity
there's
more,
that
clearinghouses
can
do
right.
They
can
set
broad
goals,
they
can
set
sort
of
regulatory
requirements
while
still
leaving
through
the
detailed
stuff
to
the
more
local
unit.
They
can
say.
D
Okay,
as
a
group,
we
are
submitted
to
the
following
things:
whether
it's
the
code
of
conduct
or
whether
it's
like
certain
types
of
statements
that
could
move
like
of
korjev
or
whether
it's
you
know
some
kind
of
capacity
for
building
budgets
for
people,
because
they
don't
want
to
fill
them
themselves.
I'd
rather
be
coding,
and
you
can
don't
exclaiming
howsoever
you
want.
D
Maybe
there
could
be
conflict
resolution
components
in
it.
I
mean
there
are
lots
of
different
sort
of
possibilities,
but
the
point
of
Jenny
that
it's
not
like
a
centralized
top-down
regulator,
it's
more
of
a
information
gathering,
but
also
synthesis
and
analysis
tool
which
then
based
on
the
fact
that
it's
got
that
information
can
do
some
other
stuff,
like
that
community
standard.
C
A
C
A
Idea
you
mentioned,
which
was
sorry
a
particular
framing
of
this,
which
is
kind
of
like
a
rolling
audit
I
think
that's
an
interesting
way
to
kind
of
think
about
the
Clearinghouse,
but
maybe
it's
also
bi-directional:
it's
not
just
it's
more
of
a
conversation
right
and
not
just
just
providing
input.
One
directionally
yeah.
D
A
I'm
personally
quite
excited
about
this
idea,
because
I
think
in
a
space
like
aetherium,
where
we're
kind
of
inherently
suspicious
of
any
kind
of
top-down,
you
know
dictatorial
command
and
control
style
governance,
something
a
governance
of
by
and
among
peers.
After
this
sort
of
a
fashion,
I
think
has
has
potential.
A
Just
to
kind
of
you
know
just
just
ask
a
question
about
this
particular
topic.
Christy.
If
I
remember
correctly,
you
mentioned
that
one
of
the
challenges
of
doing
this
in
practice
is
often
lack
of
resources.
Right,
I
think
that's
interesting,
because
we've
sort
of
seen
some
proto
clearing
houses
in
aetherium
I
think
the
fellowship
of
a
theory
of
magicians
is
a
good
example
of
one.
That's
focused
on
things
like
technical
governance:
it's
not
explicitly
a
clearinghouse,
but
it
could
evolve
into
one,
and
yet
it's
already
facing
some
of
these
challenges,
such
as
lack
of
resources.
D
Yeah
very
interesting
I
mean
I
we're
talking.
I
was
thinking
the
same
thing
that
the
fellowship
of
the
Syrian
magicians
might
be
exactly
the
right
place.
To
start,
you
know,
like
they
say,
might
be
sort
of
the
beginning
of
a
clearinghouse
around
the
technical
stuff
and
then,
of
course,
that
doesn't
that
doesn't
address
the
governance
stuff,
but
yes,
I
mean
I
feel
like
I've,
been
I,
feel
like
I've,
been
doing
this
long
enough
to
say
that
over
and
over
and
over
again
lack
of
resources
ends
up
being
the
reason
why
needs
clearing
houses
as
well?
D
You
know
lots
of
other
sort
of
well-intentioned
things,
don't
end
up
getting
the
traction
that
they
need
right.
So
it's
super
fun
to
build
a
clearing
house,
but
then
you
have
to
actually
be
serious
about
human,
but
a
couple
things
I,
what
about
resourcing
it
properly?
So
that
is
that
is
actually
providing
value,
and
you
know
it
is
able
to
ask
smart
questions
and
sort
of
move
the
needle
right,
but
then
also
that
it's
got
the
resources
to
continue
to
learn
from
its.
D
Right
so
that
it's
also
not
just
reinventing
the
wheel
like
if
you
want
them
to
actually
make
make
a
difference,
then
there
has
to
be
embedded
in
the
Clearinghouse,
its
own
mechanisms
for
like
checking
its
own
methods
and
making
sure
that
it's
still
asking
the
right
questions-
and
you
know
you
can't
be
complacent
in
that
place
anymore
than
you
can
be
complacent
to
anywhere
else.
So
yeah
resources
are
huge.
I
D
C
D
Around
social
services
in
minnesota
or
around
you
know,
EU
governance,
but
I,
think
I.
Don't
think
anyone
would
say
that
any
of
them
are
actually
fully
functional
in
the
way
that
they
could
be,
which
is
why
I
mentioned
this.
What
works
Clearinghouse,
because,
even
though
it's
a
little
bit
more
humble
in
terms
of
what
it's
trying
to
do
it?
D
It's
not,
it
was
built
from
scratch
right
and
the
problem
with
Clearing
House
is
in
a
lot
of
different
places,
as
people
try
to
grasp
them
onto
existing
legacy,
right
regulatory
structures
and-
and
it's
just
a
really
really
hard
craft,
and
you
know
that
running
a
clearinghouse
takes
different
skills
than
being
a
regulator
being
on.
You
know,
being
an
effective
contributor,
as
in
a
clearinghouse
requires.
D
You
know,
different
training,
different
skills,
different
mindset,
you're,
not
a
regulator
and
so
I
think
it's
safe
to
say
that
most
of
the
time
those
haven't
been
100%
successful,
like
we
can
learn
from
those
examples.
But
in
some
ways
it's
exciting
to
imagine
it
in
a
place
like
Syria,
an
ecosystem
because
you're
not
dealing
with
those
sort
of
those
legacy
systems.
A
Okay,
yeah,
as
you
were
saying
that
I
was
thinking,
we
don't
have
those
legacy,
regulation,
kind
of
regulatory
bodies
or
agencies
in
place
in
etherium,
so
it
could
be
a
very
interesting
place
to
run
this
sort
of
experiment.
Thank
you
again,
I
mean
there's
so
much.
We
can
say
about
this
topic,
but
I
know
we're
we're
getting
close
to
the
two-hour
mark
here.
A
So
I
think
we
should
move
forward
and
conclude,
and
of
course
we
will
explore
this
and
other
ideas
a
lot
more
in
that
report
that
we're
working
on
which,
which
I'm
pretty
excited
about.
Oh
there,
you
go
okay,
so
so
our
working
group
decided
that
we'd
like
to
share
these
findings
as
well
as
a
bunch
of
other
ones
and
suggestions
in
the
form
of
a
report
that
will
discuss
some
of
what
we
talked
about
today
on
this
call
so
kind
of
taking
a
snapshot
of
and
sharing
some
commentary
on,
aetherium
governance.
A
Today,
some
of
the
risks
that
we
perceive
that
aetherium
faces
and
things
we
think,
could
change
a
clear
set
of
recommendations
and
some
proposals
for
experimental
governance
councils
yeah.
So
anyone
so
does
anyone
else,
Christie
or
Phoebe,
or
anyone
else
want
to
add
any
commentary
on
what
might
go
into
this
report
or
what
these
bullet
points
are
referring
to.
A
D
So
you
know
maybe
a
place
for
a
code
of
conduct
and
maybe
there's
a
place
for
you
know
a
lot
more
work
on
diversity
and
maybe
there's
a
place
for
sort
of
mapping
out
what
the
community
has,
and
you
know
it
has
appetite
for
and
what
it
doesn't
and
so
on,
and
so
I
really
think
of
this
as
I'm
really
exciting
starting
points,
and
hopefully
it'll
be.
You
know
a
stimulating
and
productive,
provocative
and
productive
one,
but
I
don't
know
that
it'll
be
the
last
one.
No.
A
You
raise
a
very
important
point
here,
which
is
you
know,
a
group
of
researchers
or
core
devs,
or
some
group
of
both
can
kind
of
go
off
in
a
room
and
have
a
whiteboard
and
sit
down
and
write
a
set
of
recommendations.
But
but
really
what
it
should
be
is
is
a
conversation
and
it
like
I-s
this.
This
particular
kind
of
conversation
we're
having
now
and
the
recording
that
we're
going
to
share.
A
We
can
learn
from
one
another
and
we
need
to
kind
of
factor
in
community
response
to
ongoing
work
for
sure
and
for
for
those
of
you
who
are
academics
and
researchers.
I
I
do
think
that
this
is
could
be
very
exciting
source
of
I.
Don't
know
what
findings
and
discoveries
and
potentially
very
interesting
articles
about
you
know
what's
happening
in
in
in
in
aetherium
governance
and
practice
and
things
I'd
love
to
contribute
to
you
as
well
and
I'm.
Sure
many
others
in
the
community
would
also
like
to
contribute
to
I
think
all
right.
A
We
made
it.
That's
it.
Thank
you
all
so
much
for
your
patience
and
for
sticking
with
this
through
two
full
hours.
We
have
four
minutes
left
until
the
top
of
the
hour,
so
any
any
other
questions
or
anything.
We
have
I'd
love
to
just
open
the
floor
and
just
spend
in
those
last
few
minutes
of
discussing
you
guys
would
like
to
discuss.
G
Yeah,
if
I
could
have
helped
some
very
general
remark.
On
the
very
beginning,
we
tried,
analytically,
to
make
a
distinction
between
governance
of
blockchain
and
governance
by
blockchain,
but
I
think
that
actually,
whenever
we
talk
about
values
and
norms
which
go
into
the
governance,
those
things
are
always
go
together
right.
So
most
projects
are
built
for
some
purposes
to
to
deliver
some
kind
of
values,
and
it
would
be
logical
to
expect
that
consistence
between
these
values
appears
both
in
governance
or
blockchains
and
learns
by
blumpkins.
A
It
aside
completely,
definitely
you
know
it's
funny,
I'm
working
on
an
article
exploring
this
topic
a
bit
more
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
mentioned
in
that
article
is
that
these
two
related
areas,
governance
of
blockchains
and
governance
by
blockchains,
I,
think
kind
of
actually
reduced
to
the
same
thing.
It's
really
the
same
question
about
you
know:
making
decisions
about
how
to
allocate
a
set
of
resources
based
upon
a
set
of
shared.
You
know,
values
or
goals
or
principles.
A
It's
just
that
governance
by
blockchain
builds
on
top
of
governance
of
blockchain,
and
so,
if
you
think
about
it,
this
kind
of
this
sort
of
house
of
cards
structure
that
I
think
about
you
know.
Without
that
kind
of
stable
foundation,
you
know
I
think
it
would
be
very
difficult
to
govern
any
big
important
things
on
a
blockchain.
It's
also
interesting
to
think
about.
Like
could
you
have
a
set
of
values
at
the
base
layer
right
that
that
I
don't
know
that
you
know
put
a
great
deal.
A
G
A
Possible
practically
that's
true
yeah,
in
fact,
now
that
you
mention
it,
I
think
what
probably
needs
to
be
emphasized
at
the
ground
floor.
So
to
speak,
the
layer,
one
is
really
things
like
stability
and
I.
Think
that
that
is
what
aetherium
has
wildly
over
optimized,
for
you
know
what
the
expense
of
other
things
such
as
you
know,
democracy
or
participation,
and
maybe
you
want
to
have
those
more
participatory
structures
at
higher
levels,
there's
certainly
easier
at
higher
levels,
where
there's
less
at
stake.
I.
D
Think
there's
ongoing.
You
know
in
a
lot
of
areas
where
expertise
is
generally
required.
There's
the
tension
between
one
thing
to
get
public
input
and
recognizing
that
a
lot
of
the
time
the
public
doesn't
actually
have
the
you
know
relevant
expertise
and
can't
contribute
in
really
fundamental
ways
and
I'm
sure.
That's
especially
true
when
it
comes
to
things
like
this
I
guess
so.
I
would
say
that
when
it
comes
to
governance,
like
actually
resource
allocation
decisions
and
and
sort
of
things
that
have
the
broader
implication,
you
know
broader
implications
for
the
community.
D
I
guess
my
own
view
is
I.
Don't
believe
that
there
is
ever
such
a
thing
as
a
benevolent
dictatorship
over
the
long
run
right,
you
might
start
benevolent,
but
once
you're
a
dictator,
things
go
south
and
maybe
the
real
trick
is
to
try
and
find
out
like
to
try
and
really
articulate
where
the
line
is
between
the
technical
stuff,
which
can
be
done
sort
of
in
a
smaller
environment
and
the
governance
stuff,
where
it
really
matters
that
people
have
input
and
that
it
be
representative
and
fair.
A
Yeah,
that's
a
very
interesting
question.
You
know
it's
and
it's
a
new
question
in
aetherium
because
historically
it's
been
close
to
a
hundred
percent
technical
and
I.
Guess
one
of
the
points
I'm
trying
to
make
is
that
that's
changing
and
will
continue
to
change
as
aetherium
grows
and
evolves,
and
if
stakeholders
gets
more
diverse
and
their
needs
are
more
diverse.
Its
intersting
is
I.
Think
a
lot
of
the
questions
we're
facing
like
I,
think
prog
POW,
which
we
spoke
about.
Here's
a
great
example
of
this.
It's
sort
of
50%,
technical,
50%,
social
and
I.
A
This
is
the
beginning
of
a
conversation,
I'd
love
to
do
more
of
these
in
the
future,
and
you
know,
have
you
guys
share
some
of
your
deeper
thoughts
on
these
topics
as
well.
So
you
can
find
me
on
Twitter
and
I'm
sure
many
of
the
others
here
as
well
I'll
share
everyone's
information
if
they
wanted
to
be
shared
along
with
this
presentation
and
look
for
the
report
which
we're
planning
to
publish
by
the
end
of
June.