Disadvantages of community voting governance

In the past few days, as Chinese and foreign funds began to worry that China and the United States would repeat the mistakes of mutual sanctions, blockades, and confiscations, both sides began to actively stay away from each other's assets. Foreign capital withdrew from Chinese concept stocks, as well as Hong Kong and A-share markets, causing the already shaky market to lose a lot of blood and plummet in an instant, and retail investors were worried. The currency market, which had already fallen for half a year, stood up slightly, and it was quite like a dead pig that was not afraid of boiling water. The big cake was stuck at the 38-39k line. After several days of sideways trading, it rose slightly above 39k.

There is a term in the blockchain community called DINO, which stands for Decentralized In Name Only, meaning decentralized in name only, or decentralized in name only. It refers to almost all projects that use the word "decentralized" in their names or titles, but are actually full of centralization and the so-called single point of failure.

One of the most outrageous examples is that even a project based on a mobile app can label itself as "decentralized XXX". This kind of attitude of treating the world's leeks as fools is really enough to make Zhao Gao, who called a horse a deer, feel ashamed.

There are also so-called DAOs, decentralized autonomous organizations, which seem to be developing in the direction of populism and "tyranny of the majority". Why did ancient Greek philosophers dislike democracy? Isn't it clear from the fact that the great philosopher Socrates was voted to death by angry ancient Greek citizens?

A good institutional system must ensure that the opinions of the majority are heard and that the rights of the minority are protected. Otherwise, we will fall into the absolute pursuit of uniformity, causing the entire group to lose the motivation and vitality for evolution.

Even if opposing opinions and different opinions are wrong opinions, they are still necessary to exist. Because if there are no wrong opinions, then the correct opinions will no longer be correct. Just like if there is no night, the day will no longer be day.

If the rights of minorities cannot be protected, then everyone in society will be in danger, because no one knows whether they will be a minority tomorrow.

Can a person's right to life be determined by a majority vote? Judging from the tragedy of Socrates in ancient Greece, the answer is obviously no. No matter how fair and legitimate the voting process is, the final result is unfair and unjust.

It should be common sense that a person's life or death cannot be decided by democratic voting. However, public opinion precedes the law in judging, which is still popular in modern society. A good system should have strong support to fight against this kind of tyranny of the majority.

Second only to the right to life is the right to property. In some cases, in some people's minds, the right to property is more important than the right to life. You only need to go to the oncology department of major hospitals, watch the life and death of people, and see which patients decide to give up their lives to avoid bringing too heavy a financial burden to the living, and you will know that the weight of property is undoubtedly greater than life.

If we cannot deprive a person of his right to life by voting as in ancient Greece, then why can we deprive a person of his property rights in the same way?

Recently, a project on a public chain proposed such a proposal to the DAO, proposing to deprive a whale of his account assets and confiscate these assets, that is, return them to the community treasury. This is essentially a method of "bribing" all voters to achieve an extremely unjust result through a procedurally just method. Although, the proposal tried its best to explain the justice of the proposal: because this whale is suspected to be a professional airdrop swindler, his large number of tokens were "plundered" from the airdrop activities by reasonable use of the rules.

Community voting cannot be used to directly dispose of private property, or even to directly decide on rule changes. The former will inevitably lead to property confiscation, and the latter will form a bad law. Imagine what would happen if everyone was allowed to vote on whether the issuance of Bitcoin should exceed 21 million.

Bitcoin does not allow holders to vote. Holders can vote with their feet. If you think Bitcoin is not good, just leave. This is the only deterrent, nothing else. This is the so-called supervisory power. But this is enough to constrain code developers and miners.

(Official account: Liu Jiaolian. Knowledge Planet: reply “Planet” to the official account)