If a CIP was created that was then voted on by the community using Voltaire. Is Cardano Foundation board or whomever makes the decisions legally obliged to do what the vote said?

This is further to my comments here: Building a Public Roadmap: Draft
and here: Building a Public Roadmap: Draft

And further to a thread made in 2018!! about voting and selecting the Cardano Foundation board: XXX The Voice of the Community on the Cardano Foundation Board XXX

  • If a CIP was created that was then voted on by the community using Voltaire. Is the Cardano Foundation board or whomever makes the decisions legally obliged to do what the vote said?

I’m thinking specifically about one CIP, but I am interested would any community vote be legally binding for the Cardano Foundation?
The CIP I am thinking about would request that the current Cardano leadership disband, and that the Cardano Foundation make steps to become a Digital Autonomous Organisation(DAO). These steps likely detailed in the CIP.
Or in the interim while DAO implementation is being built, I’m thinking about a CIP detailing that the current Cardano board disband, candidates apply (the board can reapply), and are voted on by the community using Voltaire.

I guess what I am really asking is who legally owns Cardano Foundation. Because I hear it is the stakeholders? So if the stakeholders vote, then is Cardano Foundation bound legally to do what the vote said? This way there is accountability which currently there is not.

2 Likes

Hey @Lucky,
In CIP1 we outline that there are no implied assumptions cross-efforts: Just because a CIP gets to be moved to Active, doesn’t mean it has/will be adopted by the entire ecosystem. Ex: you might be using a wallet building on fictive CIP743 but your wallet could be the only one conforming to those specs.
As to the Voting / implementation, this depends how far down the road things have gone - I expect the voting will first be limited to treasury/funds allocation, while chain concerns will be delegated to experts?
In Practice however, CIPs that get to be funneled through a Catalyst proposal (to obtain funding) are likely get extra scrutiny and are highly likely to be implemented - but that’s at the discretion of IOG.
As to Goverance discussions - that space is still being explored and we’re aware that it should be carefully explored!

Regarding the Cardano Foundation, we’re a Swiss not for profit entity whose mandate is the safekeeping and growth of the Cardano ecosystem. We’re a small (<30!) group, working to coordinate many aspects, notably facilitating much of the dialogues out and with industry.
There is no obligation to follow a vote that I am aware of, but I expect the Foundation to always act with the best interest of the community and Cardano itself at heart!

2 Likes

I very much appreciate the response.

I’m glad to hear governance is being discussed. I believe this should clearly be the priority, and the roadmap is a distraction. Despite many joining the roadmap wave there are also many not joining because they feel like it won’t solve the fundamental problems at CF.

If I understood your/this comment correctly as ‘off chain?:

Blockquote
Chain concerns will be delegated to experts.

Are you referring to the team at CF as experts or are you referring to outsourcing to experts (like McCann)?

I’m concerned because the current unelected CF team (experts?) with McCann (experts?) created a bad website without accountability, which they refuse to adjust openly, and they allowed a firing of a good community manager without accountability. This broke down bridges that were made by this community manager with the community. And the CF is failing in communication to the broader community, among other failures. Hence the incentive for the ‘community’ to step up and make a roadmap.
Cutting through the bullshit, That’s the narrative I see…

Blockquote
There is no obligation to follow a vote that I am aware of, but I expect the Foundation to always act with the best interest of the community and Cardano itself at heart!

So the CF isn’t obliged to act on any community vote, and therefore also the CF won’t have obligation to implement any of the community roadmap either.

So we have to trust that CF will act in the best interest of the community despite evidence to the contrary?

This sounds a lot like self righteousness.
How can ‘best interest of the community’ be defined without a decentralised vote.

In my humble opinion the way CF acts is not the best interest of the community. I hoped for decentralised governance.

I feel like the CF is a bad parent who thinks it knows whats best for it’s children, and it hides behind corporate marketing talk, whilst seemingly providing no concrete action on the real concerns of the community.

It takes an enormous amount of centralized organisation to prepare for decentralisation, and if it’s not done pretty near perfectly, we end up with anarchy. There is no shortcut.

This discussion is worthy of an academic paper.

But to challenge your assumptions which i think are false:

  • There has never been a system in place afaik (before Voltaire) allowing ‘true’ anarchy, so your seeming implication that anarchy is ‘bad’ can only be based from knowledge of false anarchism. Please provide some examples of failed anarchy that relate to blockchain if you want to change my mind?

I don’t agree that it takes an enormous amount of centralisation to reach decentralisation. This is too subjective of a comment without afaik any historical examples to prove your point.

I could debate a lot more on these topics but I’m not defined by CF as an expert, so I have no power or influence on the matter, therefore I’m not motivated to address these issues.

Anarchy is a difficult word, means different things to different people. What I meant, mainly, is that unless a decentralised system is designed and implemented with a great deal of care, it is very likely to devolve back towards centralisation, as for instance with bitcoin. (Using anarchy to mean a situation in which that can happen, as civil anarchy allows criminal gangs, warlords and such.)

Agree @RobJF - Similarly IOHK had to go through a centralizing entity (itself) and node federation (IOHK, Emurgo, Cardano Foundation) before eventually enabling Shelley.
Similar paths are out there towards decentralization, but going too quickly and you run risks.
In my opinion, transparency and communication are key!

2 Likes

I define anarchy as lack of self defined rules and governance. It can be thought as a balanced equilibrium of an environment ruled by the nature, which can be seen everywhere where we the humans did not step in. Those kind of systems, as the nature as an example, always converge to a balance (steady state) despite any spikes and fluctuations.

2 Likes