CardanoforUkraine

Sorry guys, long rambing thread time.. (allow it, it is Sunday after all) 🤣 When I attended the CIP-1694 workshop, there was alot of things I didn't like that were not up for debate. There was alot of what seemed like "already decide for launch" factors.. Although I wasn't happy, I saw that there was built into it, the opportunity for evolution and change which meant that we could evolve the system. Have been wondering why although I have very similiar concerns as Alexander and Fabian etc... Why do I have a completely different approach to moving forward? It may be because I have spent the last 12 years employing staff and managers who I pay to make my company successful not just in the short term but in the long term too... If either I micro manage the managers, or allow the staff to make decisions on how managers do their jobs, everything would fail, discontent would set in very quickly. I set broad direction and loose parameters and every now and then, the team may be at an impasse so I get asked for final decision. I cast an eye over progress and if the team is going off piste, will nudge them back on track. (The whole wood for the trees anaology) Whether we like it or not, IOG has been tasked with building on chain governance. I wasn't paid to deliver it, neither was Alex or Fabian or anyone else. As long as the system and parameters stay changeable, I am happy to get started tbh. You can't hold IOG accountable for something it didn't control. Just like I can't hold my management team responsible for the result of a project if I made all the micro decisions, or let the staff do so. The presentation showed me enough to be happy that we can evolve and adapt quickly to get to something that could be world class. So although there is plenty I don't like. With my CEO hat on, I am happy enough to go ahead and then see the community evolve it accordingly. On a side note, I do laugh at some of the concerns about governance raised. Every democratic process started with an undemocratic decision to have a democracy, when that process should start and how it would work. Over time it evolves. Just like Alexander's example of DOT governance, which Is 2.0 now btw. It actually started very similiar to Cip 1694 in many ways and after a few years, has increased its level of "Democracy". Even though the concerns Alex held Catalyst and cip-1694 to a while ago are still present on many aspects in DOT 2.0, it is undeniably a step in the right direction, only possible because they started with onchain governance that was far from perfect and improved. Could we have a better starting point than what cip -1694 presents? Seeing as "better" is a subjective term, some will try and say "better" is "fairer" which is also highly subjective. Many on this space that are complaining rn, IMO seem to think that their viewpoints align with the majority. When in fact, as the community has grown, they are becoming a part of the minority. Their repeated attempts to make points are evidence of that. This is standard evolution of a global community. They haven't realised yet that their viewpoints and ideals have been moulded from a very specialist set of life circumstances and in alot of cases "privilege". For example, everyone can agree that they want a "fair" system.. But they can't agree on what "fair" is. I saw a tweet a couple weeks ago that with blockchains currently, we have a plutocracy not a democracy. A very thought out and well written article. At its essence though, it really boils down to whether collectively as a community, are we willing to take the power true democracy offers whilst also accepting the responsibility of the outcome? Or are we going to always need someone or a small group to be responsible? Remember, responsibility, has to be coupled with authority. You can't hold someone responsible for decisions that weren't theirs.