RT @ArthurB: I'm really excited to see the first proposal injected on the network. In just a few months time, we might witness the very first time a decentralized system programmatically amends itself. https://t.co/g7UknDL1sB
Validators will never vote for a protocol amendment that dilutes their power (e.g. amending the protocol to allow direct voting by delegators under a “1 Tez=1Vote” rule, which probably should’ve been the protocol’s default voting arrangement so each individual Tez owner could’ve directly voted their own financo-economic interests, under the assumption that over a long period of time, the financo-economic interests of delegators and their delegates will come into conflict).
I think a hot war between delegators and delegates will eventually commence over the minimal number of Tezzies required to validate, and, when it does occur, all delegators who find themselves in disagreement with their delegate should simply #UnDelegateTezos by revoking their delegates’ right to bake for them, thus potentially making their delegates’ investments in validation-related time, equipment, learning, and various other validation-related assets worthless.
Either the aggrieved delegators or the incensed delegates will eventually fold under these extreme circumstances, and afterward the entire Tezos community can move forward once the vanquished has shaken the victor’s hand.
War between those with more power and wealth and those with less of it cannot be avoided once their financo-economic interests come into conflict. The most functional governance design minimizes the damage from such conflicts. At its most fundamental level, governance is simply about one person controlling or dictating the behavior of another person (e.g. father-son) or one group of persons controlling or dictating the behavior another group of persons (e.g. colonizers-colonized). Inevitably, major and minor conflicts between those governing and those governed will arise in such an arrangement.
I think the community should expedite the incitement of the above-mentioned hot war to stress test the protocol’s governance design: #1000Tezzies.
More specifically, a type of [Liquid Democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy). Liquid PoS and Liquid Democracy are very well suited to each other, so that the structures which translate ownership into both validating power and governance power are mirrored and aligned.
Delegative democracy, also known as liquid democracy, is a form of democracy whereby an electorate has the option of vesting voting power in delegates rather than voting directly themselves. The term is a generic description of either already-existing or proposed popular-control apparatuses. Voters can either vote directly or delegate their vote to other participants; voters may select a delegate for different issues. In other words, individual A of an X society can delegate its power to another individual B – and withdraw such power again at any time.
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/tezos/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28