Discussion: Why CIP-1694's Tripartite Structure & DReps Risk Systemic Collusion

Governance General Governance Conversation
, , ,
1

Community, we need to have a serious conversation about the philosophical foundations of CIP-1694.

While our ledger layer (eUTXO) is a brilliant, localized innovation, our Governance Layer (CIP-1694) is mirroring flawed Western political history.

  1. The Tripartite Structure is Just a Western Republic: We are using Montesquieu’s Separation of Powers (DReps, SPOs, and the CC). Western history shows this inevitably leads to systemic collusion among elite political classes, completely alienating the everyday retail holder.
  2. DReps & The Roman Tribune Illusion: Delegated representation risks centralizing power. Just like the Roman Republic, this model devolves into a popularity contest where “super-DReps” with VC backing, early movers and marketing budgets absorb all the voting power.

Are we just recreating a digital Roman Senate where wealth and popularity override competence? We need to question if these Western dogmas are right for a decentralized future. Would love to hear the community’s thoughts.

Digital_Feudalism__Web3_History_Parallels
Digital_Feudalism__Web3_History_Parallels2048×2048 1.36 MB

More thoughts here - Vaibhav Solanki(Gintama)🇮🇳 on X: "Web3 thinks it is building the future, but it has simply rebuilt Medieval Europe on a blockchain. Our governance models are broken because they are anchored in hyper-individualism and zero-sum game theory. Here is why the crypto industry is trapped in the past. 🧵 https://t.co/x2t4fhShRY" / X
Paragraph - https://paragraph.com/@statecraftandcode/the-cryptographic-colosseum-the-failure-of-hyper-individualism-in-web3?referrer=0x51703778D1632a88D5259311cfca0c8be5474bf2

2

Somehow reminds me of the (non-)discussions three years ago:

1 Like
3

Thanks for sharing was an intresting read and for an MVG it would have been a good option but the current system .. sigh we did not get mvg, nor a full governance model we got half baked system which instead of solving is just creating the problems and bringing the worst of all …
Now the question is will the community take a step back or a step forward..

4

I’d prefer a step back.

I think minimal governance is actually enough. I don’t want to found a network state. I just want an effing blockchain among many other blockchains. It might succeed or it might not.

Maybe, I will just play around with some pretty worthless Disco Solaris NFTs going forward. Maybe, someone will write more exciting games. Maybe, there will be some actual crowdfunding activity.

For none of that do we need all those full-time equivalents wasting time in governance. And we honestly can’t finance them with the revenue of the little economic activity that currently happens on Cardano.

1 Like
5

I do agree with one part here- minimum governance
where the blockchain is just a technology that helps in peoples life to solve some problem
but then it becomes like bitcoin which alot of people are questioning its worth as a store of value only and what happens with technology advancemnet and it becomes obsolete , who decides , who invests , who cares .. cardano will be just an old tech which like the question or belief of quantum computing is being shared today … so a governance is needed for the chain that doesnt lets the outside - governement rules decide how the iternal working should be done..