Regarding the unending debates from the ethereum and even the bitcoin communities for the past few years, appearing from different cryptocurrency news, with regards on governance conclusions that results in splits (forks). There’s been a lot of projects that offers and suggests of an on-chain governance instead.
Such instance is a deciding part of the system to change public blockchain protocols using instead a formalized governance mechanics which is encoded inside the blockchain, as opposed to informal discussions off-line. Great examples of protocols together with on-chain governance are Tezos, EOS and Decred.
While these projects might have some significance, I consider that the push for on-chain government is, in substantial part, the result of an instinct taken over from surroundings like nation-states and private firms, both of which are extremely distinct from crypto networks.
Implicitly, their view is that we are seeing an excessive amount of departure and not enough voice and we have to build much better mechanisms for voice via proper on-chain governance.
Let us step back a little. What do I mean by voice and exit?
Part of a company, a business entity, a crypto network or even a nation, possesses two possible answers when they’re no longer happy with its own governance.
They are able to depart — leave the relationship — or else they are able to utilize their “voice” to attempt and enhance the relationship through communication.
Citizens of a country can respond to governmental repression by emigrating (exit) or protesting (voice). Employees can choose to quit their disagreeable job (depart ), or keep in touch with direction to decide to try to improve the situation (gender ). Unsatisfied customers can elect to search else where (exit), or they may ask for the boss (voice).