The meaning of LikeCoin Chain text resolution

The management or operation of the entire LikeCoin Chain is maintained by the characteristics of the Cosmos Hub and the resolution of the LikeCoin Chain. After some proposals are passed, they can be implemented immediately (Parameter Change Proposal). The implementation of this kind of resolution is more efficient than in the real world, and there is no need for a police court, because the program on the chain is controlled according to the set mechanism. Some proposals are of the nature of text proposals (Text Proposal). The validator writes the proposal in text. After the proposal is passed, LikeCoin Chain does not or does not need to modify it immediately. The reason may be that the content of the resolution needs to be modified on the chain. If it is large, it requires organization and resource implementation to complete the reform, or it is just some consensus, and there may not necessarily be an enforcement mechanism. This decision that does not change the LikeCoin Chain immediately should be respected and abide by the decision to the old cat who has been brainwashed by British colonial rule for many years. Under the premise of true democracy, the passage of the proposal is a democratic result, and everyone should bear the consequences of this result, as a matter of course. However, after participating in some discussions today, it had some impact on the old cat's head, so I wrote this article as a record of thoughts and can also be used as a reference for discussion.

One of the impacts is the questioning of the text proposal, especially if the content of the proposal is based on text constraints or consensus, and there is no penalty, then the proposal is of little significance and should not be proposed. At first glance, it seems reasonable. Without sticks and radishes, who cares about you? So why was there such a stupid text proposal design in the first place? What the hell is Cosmos Chain doing? Looking at the governance mechanism of Cosmos Chain, the text proposal will enter the implementation stage. From this perspective, the text proposal is actually authoritative in nature. Of course, the execution of on-chain motions is not like the laws of the real world, where the police and the court use force to endorse the execution. The on-chain force restriction is mainly reflected in the execution of the on-chain program. If there is no restriction mechanism in the program, there is no force method on the chain. enforced law enforcement. But is there no point in the method without force? When the blockchain is decentralized, there is no court and no platform, how to deal with things that cannot be controlled by programs on the chain? Or will it be resolved by force in the end? I think the answer is obviously no. The governance mechanism of the parameter change bill is implemented by program setting. I think one of the possible advantages of this mechanism is that it can use "force" to enforce the law without the need for armed forces, and the enforcement capability is more accurate, fair and clear. Hong Kong people may have a deeper understanding of this advantage. As for text proposals, some proposals on the chain that cannot be programmatically (forced?) executed, whether it is temporary or permanent, are complementary to a parameter proposal and have their effect, and Lao Mao believes that they should also receive the same respect. Although the monitoring of the implementation of the text proposal is not as efficient and direct as the parameter change proposal, as long as there is information flow and freedom of expression, even if someone violates the rules and escapes sanctions, they will be at ease and will pay back if they do bad things. Thinking about it again, the use of text proposals is not necessarily related to LikeCoin Chain? Who says we can only focus on the value of LikeCoin?

Maybe because the foundation of the blockchain is based on the computer network and it is a new field of knowledge, so when discussing governance on the chain, more discussions will focus on how to use the technology and the design of the mechanism, and it will be easy to solve all problems with mechanisms. Propensity. But no matter on-chain or entity, stakeholder participation will always be an important part. The implementation and monitoring of text proposals is actually a democratic process of participation. It is the responsibility of each stakeholder to monitor the motion and act in accordance with the resolution of the motion. If you don't plan to be responsible, you don't need to talk about democracy.

postscript:

This article was written yesterday, and I planned to retouch it today and send it to share to complete the task. Unexpectedly, when I woke up and saw that there were already six validators who did not act according to the third point of the first resolution, my mood really sank.

For the old cat, the proposal of LikeCoin Chain is very important, it is a very important part of appreciating the civil republic (I don’t want to compare it to the constitution, but the nature is very similar), and it is some consensus in this country. Therefore, after becoming the principal, regardless of the nature of the motions, I will try to make them clear and share my views, try to be as transparent as possible, and hope that there will be enough time to discuss before the old cat votes. Lao Mao will have stricter requirements on validators, because being a validator, no matter what the motive of being a validator, actually has a representative identity in nature, and will closely participate in, understand and relate to the proposal. I think in addition to maintaining the technical work of the verification service, respect for the resolution is also the meaning of the validator. I implore validators to act according to the resolution and respect the resolution of the mechanism. If the resolution is out of date, then propose amendments as soon as possible, rather than arbitrarily doing things on your own. I want to believe that we haven't reached the point of breaking the law.