Network-governance brainstorming

  1. Probably not as well as you
  2. We don’t want to be maintainers/admins of the inherited channels. We are only trying to help in this transitory period.
  3. It didn’t belong to the network. It belonged to Kaine. We could have and people have created and used probably more other channels (i.e Zenon Community). The creators of Zenon Community are in their right to exercise permanent ownership of their tg channel. Zenon is not owned by anyone. We are all free to do the same, even encouraged.
  1. Then I refuse to be part of a network which has figure heads claiming decisions over the network. The narrative of the value of Pillars has changed over time as these figure heads gained power.

All of you who replied ignored to answer why my idea above cannot work.

Enforcement is an issue. But the same applies for AZ. We got rekt on some AZ’s and lost funds. How can we ask for the funds back?

1 Like

What idea? The domain acting as a router?

My issue with changing hands is we increase the likelihood of getting rugged/handing the domain over to a bad apple. I do like the idea of pointing to what’s considered the better resource, but that’s a subjective thing, even if we think of some metrics we could use to help make a decision.

Why elections are held.

Who says the current owners of aren’t bad apples? You thought .network wouldn’t give up on you, and they sure didn’t give a f – so yeah anyone can be a bad apple.


that’s exactly why we should not rely on any domain or single entity, zir.

No elections, no figure heads. No single points of entry for the network.

And why not have an election process which keeps everything in place and improves the network?

1 Like

I think there are more flaws in killing the TG/Twitter, then to implementing a democracy in the existing network and channels. This isn’t rocket science.

1 Like

I’m open to the idea, I do think there will be significant efficiency gains if we are able to come up with something that works. I’m just skeptical we’ll achieve any meaningful progress. Keep in mind this problem is not exclusive to us.

@0x3639 if you don’t believe in delegator-weighed Pillar votes for a governance module, why would you think that delegators should discuss proposals in an old OG chat where we were setting up the forum? I get that they’re community-too… but wait… maybe it has something to do with the fact that you supported the idea of such governance mechanism in the past? Ah yes that’s probably it.

I don’t appreciate the way in which you are trying to move this conversation forward. It is not productive, it’s offensive to contributors and discourages open participation.


You asked me to move the conversation here, so it’s still a conversation.

It’s not my fault a bunch of you are offended because I find facts are being fabricated at the moment.

Let’s see, I liked @mehowbrainz suggestions and as I work in marketing the power of backlinks and traffic routing are crucial, I agree.

An election of voters who have shown their Proof-of-Work and who pay to participate in the network is an excellent idea.
These elections could be held regularly during times of significant updates to the protocol in general.

I don’t think there’s any dichotomy between the community here, just a war of human ego.

But I support not sunsetting the old channels because they work as backlinks and traffic routes, the old channels should at least become a guide on how to participate in the network from now on using AZ for example.

deleting the old channels will only lead to more disorganization.


Instead of fighting each other, let’s try and come together. This community was built on mutual respect and a shared vision for the values and ethos of Bitcoin. Remember that.

We have AZ for network governance and we should expand it to encompass more than decentralized funding.

We, the community have the power to change things for the better. I’m doing my part. Are you?


Second what @aliencoder said

Let’s be productive please and not try to prove anyone wrong - it seems everyone is on board with voting in a new TG owner.

After that we can discuss what to do with the back links on CMC etc.


Most “improvement proposal” systems (think ZIPs) usually categorize the proposed governance change which then determines the voting mechanism (on-chain vs general sentiment vs poll etc.).

Obviously we can’t be having every decision go to AZ, I don’t think that’s an effective use of Pillar time and efforts but if there’s enough discourse in the community about it then it’s the best mechanism we have for ratifying a decision. Bitcoin doesn’t perform an on-chain vote for changing the BIP GitHub editors for example - they do it off chain.

In the future I’m sure we’ll have an on-chain governance voting and execution solution (think AZ but for governance in its own tab in Syrius) - but for now let’s agree as a community on if we need to vote via AZ for the TG owner roles and then the other items that mehowz was raising - we can continue to have that discussion here


Some good points for discussion on the topic:

(noting GitHub editors are a bit more critical than TG admins etc. but the points are related)