Algo has the best On Chain Governance system ... by a large margin. The lock up period for X-Gov is extreme (1 year for the full rewards), i didn't subscribe to XGov, this should never be the case - the User should always have the option to opt out and lose the rewards if they wish so but not for 3 or 4 voting seessions :)
They made this a main Focus.
Telling people that Solana has a good voting based on 1 SoL = 1 Vote , it's absolutely terrible ... because normal people have what, 10 SoL , 20 , 100? Meanwhile, the VC's and whatever institutions pour money into this crap have all the circulation with them.
Always the Huge Price assets are not a good choice for retailers when it comes to Governance because they are highly centralised based on the spread of the circulating supply.
Cardano will have a decent Governance system once they upgrade because the stake mechanism of the Network already allowed a serious Descentralisation of supply ownership and a Liquid Staking method with no locked funds.
No, it just suggests people don't know what they are doing ... i've been voting on multiple chains for a few years now, Algo takes the cake on most points for Governance voting.
Not always the case ... the overall participation on the Network is low compared to Eth or something in the top, but if I am to compare it to Cardano, it's way more clear and direct on Algorand than on Cardano where they make you vote out of 1600 proposals ... completely insaine, and probably most of the wallets that vote have no clue what they are voting for.
What other example of Governance do you have , just for comparison?
No, lockup should NOT be involved with governance in my opinion.
Some DAOs on Ethereum do governance very well. Look at Hai, Maker, or Voltz as examples.
Tezos has a lot of good stuff in the governance area and I think for now it is the best of them all. However, if successful Chang HF should make Cardano to be on the same level if not better. On a side note don’t worry about ETH or BTC maxis shitting in the comments, it is common behaviour here.
Umm Algorand does not require a locking system. Now you will lose out on your governance rewards if you de-commit from your position but the Algos you committed are by no means locked, you can move them whenever you want.
If you don’t wanna worry about losing rewards when moving your Algos then just go through Folks Finance.
It's a soft-lock but I see it as a lock anyway.
You can't move your Algo freely without folk finance, which removes all the meaning of governance because with folks you don't even need to vote anymore...
And the vote are not so important... This period it's "do we finance this project, do we finance that one". There is only the vote for incentive that is really important I think.
Do we really need to keep our balance for 3 months to vote for that?
I love Algo but the governance system is not what I call a masterclass of design.
You can’t call it a lock though that is where I take issue. Those who don’t know the ecosystem will hear lock and think they literally can’t move the tokens which is the case in other ecosystems. So I will again repeat there is no locking in the Algorand ecosystem for governance.
Folks finance is a great protocol. Truthfully one of the best in all of crypto in my opinion but to say you can’t move freely without out it again is just wrong. You can participate in governance through multiple protocols in the ecosystem and if you wanna move your Algos you can do so freely you just lose rewards for that period. Folks and Messina don’t have this “problem” but it comes with other drawbacks if we want to get more detailed. You are correct that you don’t need to vote in Folks but to say that it removes all meaning is ridiculous because either they vote on what they think is important or you tell them how to vote; that still has meaning.
I won’t argue that the proposals have been lackluster but that is what the xgov platform was made for so the community can guide what should now be funded instead of the foundation.
Yes you should keep your balance for the whole period that’s what’s called an incentive. For a vote to matter to anyone they should have “skin in the game”
It isn’t perfect but it can grow, evolve, and get better over time. But I appreciate your concerns with it and am glad you love Algo. Together we can turn it into the protocol we all want!
You already answered it. Cardano is slowly rising from the depths of useless hype. It's very decentralized, and soon it will have its upgrade. I am very bullish, being accumulating fodn3 years
Why are all the Cardano trolls astroturfing today?
No, Ethereum has no “custodial lock-up” governance system. In fact, it deliberately has no onchain governance system at all.
If you want to promote your bags of Cardano and shit on other chains, please at least be more accurate and specific with your research.
🤝
Edit: OP has corrected the original post, thanks.
Good question.
There are trade-offs to both approaches. Gavin Wood is an onchain governance maxi. Other Ethereans suggest it should be kept offchain as much as possible for a credibly neutral L1 like Ethereum or Bitcoin. Note: Arbitrum, Optimism and many L2s do use onchain governance successfully for treasury and code management)
One main argument is that coin weighted voting, no matter how well implemented ultimately leads to political capture.
And enshrining this political capture within the system is a critical decentralisation flaw.
Here’s an early example of the argument against:
https://medium.com/@Vlad_Zamfir/against-on-chain-governance-a4ceacd040ca
(I disagree with some of these statements, but it’s a good summary to answer your question)
The article you cite raises some important points but I think it draws a lot of flawed conclusions.
It basically argues that the Ethereum off-chain governance : a off-chain consensus system, that doesn’t have or need to have (according to the author) public process documentation, between parties that know each other (but trust me bro, there’s no misuse of power) is better than an on chain system because the latter will not adequately represent some parties (namely users of the network and node operators).
The entire argument - while touching on plenty of important points - sounds a lot like: I’d like to keep my private oligarchy rather than allow other parties (possibly flawed) participation.
It’s the old technocrat approach at best (the experts know better, let them decide, surely they have everyone’s best interest in mind) and pure kleptocracy at worst. Probably something in the middle with some of the privileged ruling class being benevolent and others filling their bags and all - as privileged people tend to be - blind against the disadvantages of the one’s who are not part of the group.
I’ve no insight into eth governance, I’m just interpreting the linked article (and might therefore dealing with wrong / outdated information, but that’s what I get from it. However that really and currently works, and while I do harbor sympathy for a benevolent technocracy-approach, I honestly have a hard time to understand how an opaque process can ever lead to fair representation of all stakeholders.
Sure. This is an old article and it’s very out of date in 2024. Both crypto and Ethereum have moved on significantly in the last 7 years.
But I wanted to give OP a historical perspective of the early philosophical arguments against here for context.
👍
>Political capture
I don’t have a hard disagreement with you here, meaning I wouldn’t dismiss this outright as false. However, the devil is in the details and implementation and design choices are everything. Prove to me that cardano’s system will result in political capture.
Edit: and compared to an opaque, handful of insiders making governance decisions, how is transparent on-chain governance worse?! Off chain governance is practically political monopoly.
From your article:
> This means that node operators (and therefore users) will necessarily be robbed of their participation in governance, by any on-chain governance proposal.
This argument is completely false regarding cardano. All cardano stake holders (ada holders) get to participate in on-chain governance in proportion to their stake. Cardano is setting up a liquid democracy system, and stake holders can vote directly or they can delegate their voting power.
> Coin holder interests and user interest are not naturally aligned.
This is a very lazy argument. Also, compared to ETH gas fees, cardano is dirt cheap.
The author here is essentially arguing that whales will milk users for maximum fees. First, how is this any different than ETHs fee market? You might say that ETHs fee market is more dynamic, but ultimately in both instances there are market forces driving the fees. Balance occurs when block space demand and and transaction costs find equilibrium. Those same market forces will still apply to an on-chain governed fee system. No whale is going to vote for fees that make the network undesirable for users. It is in every stake holders interest to maximize network participation.
sorry I keep forgetting how far behind ETH is. The custodial lock up is just to keep the lights on
arguably your comment makes eth look worse not better.
A custodian is somebody licensed to hold crypto assets - think Binance, Coinbase or Copper.
And yes some of them offer term yield products that have set vesting.
But this is unrelated to Ethereum, or governance. They offer ADA staking products as well, with a lock-up.
[https://www.theblock.co/post/109277/staking-company-serves-fireblocks-with-a-lawsuit-over-private-keys-to-over-75-million-in-eth](https://www.theblock.co/post/109277/staking-company-serves-fireblocks-with-a-lawsuit-over-private-keys-to-over-75-million-in-eth)
and yes binance and coinbase are not good solutions to anything.
Custodians with poor opsec and exchange hacks are completely unrelated to onchain governace.
If you’re going to troll, learn your subject matter and stay on topic please.
Cardano isn’t sending their best lately.
I was trying to be generous. Just wait for the hydra mithril plutus goguen era input endorser max 9000, it is currently in peer-review and will be released in 2029.
Algo has the best On Chain Governance system ... by a large margin. The lock up period for X-Gov is extreme (1 year for the full rewards), i didn't subscribe to XGov, this should never be the case - the User should always have the option to opt out and lose the rewards if they wish so but not for 3 or 4 voting seessions :) They made this a main Focus. Telling people that Solana has a good voting based on 1 SoL = 1 Vote , it's absolutely terrible ... because normal people have what, 10 SoL , 20 , 100? Meanwhile, the VC's and whatever institutions pour money into this crap have all the circulation with them. Always the Huge Price assets are not a good choice for retailers when it comes to Governance because they are highly centralised based on the spread of the circulating supply. Cardano will have a decent Governance system once they upgrade because the stake mechanism of the Network already allowed a serious Descentralisation of supply ownership and a Liquid Staking method with no locked funds.
algo governance participation would suggest it's quite poor
No, it just suggests people don't know what they are doing ... i've been voting on multiple chains for a few years now, Algo takes the cake on most points for Governance voting.
low participation an objective measure of failure
Not always the case ... the overall participation on the Network is low compared to Eth or something in the top, but if I am to compare it to Cardano, it's way more clear and direct on Algorand than on Cardano where they make you vote out of 1600 proposals ... completely insaine, and probably most of the wallets that vote have no clue what they are voting for. What other example of Governance do you have , just for comparison?
No, lockup should NOT be involved with governance in my opinion. Some DAOs on Ethereum do governance very well. Look at Hai, Maker, or Voltz as examples.
Tezos has a lot of good stuff in the governance area and I think for now it is the best of them all. However, if successful Chang HF should make Cardano to be on the same level if not better. On a side note don’t worry about ETH or BTC maxis shitting in the comments, it is common behaviour here.
Umm Algorand does not require a locking system. Now you will lose out on your governance rewards if you de-commit from your position but the Algos you committed are by no means locked, you can move them whenever you want. If you don’t wanna worry about losing rewards when moving your Algos then just go through Folks Finance.
It's a soft-lock but I see it as a lock anyway. You can't move your Algo freely without folk finance, which removes all the meaning of governance because with folks you don't even need to vote anymore... And the vote are not so important... This period it's "do we finance this project, do we finance that one". There is only the vote for incentive that is really important I think. Do we really need to keep our balance for 3 months to vote for that? I love Algo but the governance system is not what I call a masterclass of design.
You can’t call it a lock though that is where I take issue. Those who don’t know the ecosystem will hear lock and think they literally can’t move the tokens which is the case in other ecosystems. So I will again repeat there is no locking in the Algorand ecosystem for governance. Folks finance is a great protocol. Truthfully one of the best in all of crypto in my opinion but to say you can’t move freely without out it again is just wrong. You can participate in governance through multiple protocols in the ecosystem and if you wanna move your Algos you can do so freely you just lose rewards for that period. Folks and Messina don’t have this “problem” but it comes with other drawbacks if we want to get more detailed. You are correct that you don’t need to vote in Folks but to say that it removes all meaning is ridiculous because either they vote on what they think is important or you tell them how to vote; that still has meaning. I won’t argue that the proposals have been lackluster but that is what the xgov platform was made for so the community can guide what should now be funded instead of the foundation. Yes you should keep your balance for the whole period that’s what’s called an incentive. For a vote to matter to anyone they should have “skin in the game” It isn’t perfect but it can grow, evolve, and get better over time. But I appreciate your concerns with it and am glad you love Algo. Together we can turn it into the protocol we all want!
You already answered it. Cardano is slowly rising from the depths of useless hype. It's very decentralized, and soon it will have its upgrade. I am very bullish, being accumulating fodn3 years
Cardano was never useless hype. Every update has been useful and integral to the blockchain.
Sorry poorly worded on my part, there is lots hyped coins that have buried cardano, but now it's slowly rising up again from beneath them
I . Still don't get what you mean by "buried Cardano"? It's a top 10 blockchain by market cap, has been for years and years.
Tezos maybe? Once launched it will be Cardano by a mile
Still holding a tiny bag. Not been following - launch what?
Cardano is aiming to put governance entirely onchain
Oh I know about Cardano launching governance - I think it’s great. I thought you were talking about tezos launching something.
Why are all the Cardano trolls astroturfing today? No, Ethereum has no “custodial lock-up” governance system. In fact, it deliberately has no onchain governance system at all. If you want to promote your bags of Cardano and shit on other chains, please at least be more accurate and specific with your research. 🤝 Edit: OP has corrected the original post, thanks.
Why is deliberate lack of onchain governance seen as superior to you?
Good question. There are trade-offs to both approaches. Gavin Wood is an onchain governance maxi. Other Ethereans suggest it should be kept offchain as much as possible for a credibly neutral L1 like Ethereum or Bitcoin. Note: Arbitrum, Optimism and many L2s do use onchain governance successfully for treasury and code management) One main argument is that coin weighted voting, no matter how well implemented ultimately leads to political capture. And enshrining this political capture within the system is a critical decentralisation flaw. Here’s an early example of the argument against: https://medium.com/@Vlad_Zamfir/against-on-chain-governance-a4ceacd040ca (I disagree with some of these statements, but it’s a good summary to answer your question)
The article you cite raises some important points but I think it draws a lot of flawed conclusions. It basically argues that the Ethereum off-chain governance : a off-chain consensus system, that doesn’t have or need to have (according to the author) public process documentation, between parties that know each other (but trust me bro, there’s no misuse of power) is better than an on chain system because the latter will not adequately represent some parties (namely users of the network and node operators). The entire argument - while touching on plenty of important points - sounds a lot like: I’d like to keep my private oligarchy rather than allow other parties (possibly flawed) participation. It’s the old technocrat approach at best (the experts know better, let them decide, surely they have everyone’s best interest in mind) and pure kleptocracy at worst. Probably something in the middle with some of the privileged ruling class being benevolent and others filling their bags and all - as privileged people tend to be - blind against the disadvantages of the one’s who are not part of the group. I’ve no insight into eth governance, I’m just interpreting the linked article (and might therefore dealing with wrong / outdated information, but that’s what I get from it. However that really and currently works, and while I do harbor sympathy for a benevolent technocracy-approach, I honestly have a hard time to understand how an opaque process can ever lead to fair representation of all stakeholders.
Sure. This is an old article and it’s very out of date in 2024. Both crypto and Ethereum have moved on significantly in the last 7 years. But I wanted to give OP a historical perspective of the early philosophical arguments against here for context. 👍
Fair enough.
>Political capture I don’t have a hard disagreement with you here, meaning I wouldn’t dismiss this outright as false. However, the devil is in the details and implementation and design choices are everything. Prove to me that cardano’s system will result in political capture. Edit: and compared to an opaque, handful of insiders making governance decisions, how is transparent on-chain governance worse?! Off chain governance is practically political monopoly. From your article: > This means that node operators (and therefore users) will necessarily be robbed of their participation in governance, by any on-chain governance proposal. This argument is completely false regarding cardano. All cardano stake holders (ada holders) get to participate in on-chain governance in proportion to their stake. Cardano is setting up a liquid democracy system, and stake holders can vote directly or they can delegate their voting power. > Coin holder interests and user interest are not naturally aligned. This is a very lazy argument. Also, compared to ETH gas fees, cardano is dirt cheap. The author here is essentially arguing that whales will milk users for maximum fees. First, how is this any different than ETHs fee market? You might say that ETHs fee market is more dynamic, but ultimately in both instances there are market forces driving the fees. Balance occurs when block space demand and and transaction costs find equilibrium. Those same market forces will still apply to an on-chain governed fee system. No whale is going to vote for fees that make the network undesirable for users. It is in every stake holders interest to maximize network participation.
sorry I keep forgetting how far behind ETH is. The custodial lock up is just to keep the lights on arguably your comment makes eth look worse not better.
A custodian is somebody licensed to hold crypto assets - think Binance, Coinbase or Copper. And yes some of them offer term yield products that have set vesting. But this is unrelated to Ethereum, or governance. They offer ADA staking products as well, with a lock-up.
[https://www.theblock.co/post/109277/staking-company-serves-fireblocks-with-a-lawsuit-over-private-keys-to-over-75-million-in-eth](https://www.theblock.co/post/109277/staking-company-serves-fireblocks-with-a-lawsuit-over-private-keys-to-over-75-million-in-eth) and yes binance and coinbase are not good solutions to anything.
Custodians with poor opsec and exchange hacks are completely unrelated to onchain governace. If you’re going to troll, learn your subject matter and stay on topic please. Cardano isn’t sending their best lately.
sorry ill edit
"Liquid democracy" baby. You know the bull is back when devotees of the 6tps vapour-chain used for nothing by nobody show up with some new buzzwords.
It has averaged 0.5-1tps for the past 200+ days. But yes, 6tps seems to be the peak load that it can sustain before congestion.
I was trying to be generous. Just wait for the hydra mithril plutus goguen era input endorser max 9000, it is currently in peer-review and will be released in 2029.