Voting: Staying true to Principles


#1

How will the Ouroboros algorithm prevent rich organizations from derailing the project from its original vision?

Let’s say, a large bank; group of banks; or a government decides to purchase a huge amount of Ada. Since they will have a large chunk of tokens, they can control most of the voting. For example, they can propose and vote that privacy be removed from the protocol.

When voting is passed and it turns out that a decision goes horribly wrong, is there a way in Ouroboros to retract, reject or prematurely stop an implementation that is already funded? E.g. Brexit and people being interviewed saying they regret their decision. This means previously popular vote may have become unpopular if a new election is made. How does milestones, audit reviews and accountability fits into the voting process?

A lot of people also vote because of short-term reasons. How will long-term goals be continuously introduced into the project? How will the voting system in Cardano maintain cohesiveness of the design in the long run?


#2

It is my understanding that the project tries to deliver a stake driven system to the community.
So if the community decides respecting the criteria, there is no way to avoid outcomes.

No idea if there is a rollback option for regretted voters.

Well, I think that there is no central plan to keep cohesiveness. That the fun of it. Decentralization. Whatever come to be the new facing challenge of a specific subject, will call a voting round and changed.


#3

Also I am not sure If it is a Ouroboros algo responsibility to prevent such thing,
From what I undestand, It should only make sure that the ledger state is what the consensus is reached by appropriated manner.
I believe the system responsible for that is still on blue-prints. Could find very little about treasury:

  1. Treasury system will exist some time in the future
  2. Cardano whiteboard; Treasuries, with Bingsheng Zhang, Ph.D. Lecturer

#4

Well… I’m hoping that the Cardano Foundation, as an independent entity, is mandated and has a set of Vision and Mission that outlines the key principles of what Cardano wants to be. Proposed feature set and future releases would have to always match those underlying principles before putting them up for a vote. E.g. Fungibility, Privacy, Security, Sustainability, Scalability, Interoperability etc. If a proposed change compromises any of the underlying principles, it should be removed from voting but removal should be transparent. My impression from recent live interviews of Charles (DataDash, CryptoCandor and Crypt0), these principles are the reasons that make the Cardano project great.