Validator Opinion # About Proposal 4 - Direct Democracy is here (?)

About Beijing University of Science and Technology

Hello everyone, I am one of the main managers of the current LikeCoin Chain - NTUT (Taipei Tech) Beijing University of Science and Technology Blockchain Research Society node (Beijing University of Science and Technology node for short), and the current community instructor - Dr. Bao/ Ge Rujun . Not long ago, the node of Beijing University of Science and Technology was mainly established for the Taipei University of Science and Technology Blockchain Research Society , which was established not long ago. The purpose is to encourage community members to understand, adapt and practice DAO governance within a period of time. Although this node is currently The management has not fully established the internal DAO mechanism (Aragon on Rikeby has been established, but it is still in testing and not officially operational), but the communication with the current president and members is good, and thanks to many people for their trust, it is currently on the node list. The top five in voting rights .

A few days ago, a voting proposal (proposed by node Nicolas ) was brewed in the LikeCoin Chain community, the content of which is " Allow individual LikeCoin stakeholders to raise proposal and vote. - Full proposal ", which is equivalent to the transfer of LikeCoin Chain by The current mechanism was transformed into direct democracy. Several good friends of the LikeCoin community posted discussions on Matters (see related article in this article), and whether before or after the bill was passed, everyone found that we were the "only one" who voted against it. did not come out to speak.

Here's our take.

Brief Description - Rejected Comments

As the original founder and one of the main managers of the Beijing University of Science and Technology node, here is the main reason why we oppose this proposal. I personally feel against it for one simple reason:

• Indeed, as stated in this article , direct democratic proposal rights seem to me to be too early.

In the current state of the community, is it really good to implement direct democracy? If the general participation of the community is too low, implementing direct democracy too early may make early development very inefficient. Maybe this is the reason why Beijing University of Science and Technology is opposed to this motion, and I look forward to their help in writing an article to explain their position. - Huangshan Niuren " LikeCoin Proposal 4 - Is Direct Democracy Good?" 》

In addition, Zhang Kaisen, the current president of Beijing University of Science and Technology Blockchain Research Institute, also put forward his views:

• "The purpose of adding nodes in the first few proposals should be not to let the power only rest on the initial node; in other words, it is considered to be open to other people to propose proposals. However, it has been a while since the number of nodes has been increased, and we have not seen any proposals. (Basic governance-related) proposal, but a more radical/radical proposal appeared directly than other proposals, that is, not only open nodes can propose proposals, but any Holder holding LikeCoin can propose proposals (as long as It can meet the conditions for the proposal, such as Stake 1 million LikeCoin).
  
  Of course it's not bad, it's just that new entrants may still be familiar with this platform. Everyone is still learning the concepts of on-chain governance or DAO democracy or liquid democracy. Maybe this stage is more suitable for "nodes" to propose proposals. Let everyone get to know each other slowly, even after a few direct democratic public hearings, it is more appropriate to introduce similar proposals. If the Stakeholder (LikeCoin holder) really wants to propose a proposal, he can ask the node to help to propose it. Does this also promote the opportunity for communication? "
  
  - Current President Zhang Kaisen

summary

I agree with the president - since it's passed, do it well! Set up the relevant rules, it will not become more confusing.

Direct democracy is not easy, how to prevent malicious proposals? For example, increase LikeCoin rewards to increase the benefits of nodes, or propose to switch chains to achieve your own interests? Or how to prevent too many motions so that the really important motions are ignored or shut down? How to prevent the proposal from not being discussed enough, and then having to make a new proposal and change it back in the future? Do Stakeholders' direct proposals need to go through a process similar to a public hearing or proposal description? Should the LikeCoin community come up with more proposal teaching to teach Stakeholders the correct proposal and the information technology needed for the proposal? If the ability to propose has a threshold due to the information gap, is this really direct democracy? Or does it unilaterally satisfy a relatively small number of Stakeholders with "technical aristocracy" and "sales ability" to govern this community more easily?

This time, I think that it is better to have a proposal than not, and nothing is better than not, but since it has passed , there must be more discussions at each node to face the result of this proposal, if we do not have so much money Time, then maybe propose amendments again, and by the way introduce a more complete direct democratic process (such as setting up a Signaling mechanism similar to Snapshot.Page , etc.), it is also an approach. Looking forward to the evolution of the community, continue to flow, and will eventually blossom.

＊If you agree with us, you are welcome to delegate the LikeCoin in your hands , and we will cast a valuable vote on your behalf.

The country of citizens, among the flowers . - Tang Feng