The Founder of Archway had a vision to ensure the network achieved as close as possible to the Nakamoto coefficient. In his only appearance on the governance forums he claimed that the centralization of power can be dangerous. And I agree wholeheartedly.
In the spirit of his vision I would like to make a proposal on chain preventing a handful of individuals from controlling the chain. From my estimation Phi-labs and the foundation has an estimated two thirds the voting power on Archway.
Having two-thirds voting power in a decentralized network is dangerous as it concentrates decision-making in the hands of two entities, undermining the principles of decentralization. This can lead to manipulation, censorship, and a compromise of transparency and security within the network.
To meet the true vision of the founder I would like to propose preventing two entities from controlling the chain. To make this possible I would like to propose that philabs and the foundation must split their votes 50/50 on all proposals to allow for a fair and open vote.
Opposition against this signaling proposal goes against the founders vision and encourages the centralization of power.
If archway users support having a decentralized network and want to achieve the founders vision of the Nakamoto coefficient then I would like to bring the founders vision proposal to vote on chain in 5 days. 2023-12-07T06:00:00Z
Rob, what’s the good word? There’s some confusion here. The Foundation abstains from governance.
A few others reached out in recent days about rumors of the Foundation suddenly coming in and swaying governance props. Can confirm that is definitely NOT true.
Great to hear from you and thank you for taking part in the governance discussion.
From my understanding when I take this to chain for vote then I can clearly articulate that the foundation will not vote in any governance proposal. Is that the correct verbiage?
@mike what is the best way to achieve the founders visions with the Nakamoto coefficient with respect to Phi-labs?
I don’t think you can demand Phi-Labs give up their vote rights. They did built the chain.
As for the Foundation, it must always be presumed it is a neutral entity. That is one of the core purposes of having a foundation in the first place. Of course good to hear from Mike directly.
Finally, voting 50/50 is not neutral, voting ‘abstain’ is.
if a large party were to vote 50/50, it would look like a large part is against the proposal.
On the flipside, voting ‘abstain’ keeps the voting outcome neutral, i.e. does not interfere with the reading of the voting outcome.
In fact, manually voting abstain would refrain from the governance power of Foundation tokens from being diverted to validators to whom they’re delegating. Would actually be mitigating some of the governance concerns we’re seeing directed towards Astrovault in our prop, that are far more applicable with every validator that is receiving Foundation delegations.
@ilo, the intent behind the proposal is to adhere to the founders vision of meeting the Nakamo coefficient for Archway. In his one and only appearance on the Archway Governance Forum he voiced concern against the consolidation of power. As a community should we should coalesce around this idea. Therefore this proposal meets his intent and directly addresses the elephant in the room. Two entities have approximately 2/3 voting power. One entity being Phi-Labs and the other being the Archway Foundation . The Archway Foundation righteously committed to abstaining from governance votes, taking his commitment on chain will help make it official. In addition specifying an abstain vote helps to affirm against bias. On the other hand, Input and thoughts from Phi-labs would be great however, if they choose to abstain from discussion we should move forward with the founder’s intent of achieving as close to the Nakamoto coefficient as possible.