In his article Zamfir focuses on legitimacy, and argues that community consensus on what is ‘legitimate’ will ultimately decide whether a decision is disputable or not. In essence, people must grant legitimacy to the governing institution in order to recognize its decisions. Without this legitimacy, the governing institution of the blockchain will ultimately fail because it will lack authority from the people.
In order to gain authority and legitimacy from the community, Zamfir states that you must be aware of the politics of each participant and their purposes for using the blockchain. This includes node operators, core developers, and coin holders. The diversity of their motivations to join the blockchain must be recognized in the governance model.
Zamfir poses five possible outcomes of blockchain governance in the world as we see it today:
Autonomous Blockchains
In this model, Blockchain governance does nothing except ensure that the blockchain keeps functioning according to pre-determined rules of protocol, which is expected not to change unless absolutely necessary. The legitimate decision of this model is to not do anything at all. While the pros of this may lie in its simplicity, it lacks accountability for harm done to the community.
Blockchain Capture
A blockchain capture implies that the governance of the blockchain has been maliciously overtaken by a single group to rule unequivocally. There are four types of capture:
Corporate Capture: Corporate governance of a corporation becomes the source of legitimacy for the blockchain governance.
State Capture: ‘regional blockchains’ are governed by the rules of that jurisdiction depending on what state the blockchain is being operated on in.
Developer Capture: Core developers of the software hold the sole legitimacy of governance.
Cartel Capture: A group of participants in the blockchain collude to control its governance.
The pro of this model is that these are the governance models that most of the community is used to. The downside though, is that capturers will most likely operate in self-interest over the stakeholder.
Internet Censorship
In this model, sovereign states outlaw and censure the use of and access to the blockchain if it is not in compliance with local regulation. This would result in a local government controlling the legal implications of an international blockchain.
Public International Law & Diplomacy
The blockchain would be governed through international institutions under the traditional legal boundaries of multilateral agreements. This model would grant its legitimacy to institutions such as the United Nations (UN). The negative of this model is that it’s bound to regional politics and has the ability to avoid local unpopularity by how removed it is, therefore disenfranchising the community.
International Private Cooperation
In this model, the blockchain is open for participation by the public and governed by relationships between people, businesses, and NGO’s.
0 Comments