I spent the last few hours reading the Vitalik/Naval exchange on Twitter and I’ve also given consideration to the points presented by @frankbraun on this forum.
But ultimately, it comes down to this: when your project’s adversary is armed with a money printer and enough agents to provide the illusion of plurality, any “one token, one vote” system is bound to get captured.
I’ve seen this happen to Bitcoin too and it’s not even a proof of stake system: due to the poor development culture, the argument “let’s not make these whales sell their bags” prevails over any technical proposal regardless of soundness. If anything, upgrades only get considered to please large institutional investors (I’ve seen Adam Back tweet about adding quantum resistance to Bitcoin to obliterate the FUD on the markets).
Of course, Zcash should avoid both of these extremes. And I do agree that the current system, which leverages human politics, is inherently flawed. You can basically elect spooks who will stall conversations, go on strike and cause infighting every time an important money allocation is about to be made, and erode the community’s spirit.
But I think Proof of Work is the way to go, in a near future where Equihash miners for home become affordable and plug and play, or else the mining algorithm gets changed into something better (maybe Blake3?).
I also think that there is merit in a PoW-PoS model, where the ZEC holders and the thermodynamic security providers are bound by checks and balances – much like the two houses of the US Congress, where one has proportional representation while the other has the same number of votes for each state.
So maybe a simple majority of hashrate (51%+) can signal support for an issue, and then the ZEC holders who own at least 50 ZEC (just an example) can register to vote for or against it?
Because it’s difficult to “print hash rate” as the ASIC miners are scarce, built in limited numbers, and end up in the hands of believers who care about the long-term success of the Zcash network. There’s also an electricity consumption that makes attacks expensive and risky.
In comparison, token voting is much easier to game: whales can create multiple wallets to make it look like a large number of participants are voting, while hostile nations can use the money printer to acquire enough ZEC to hold governance hostage. More skin in the game doesn’t always translate to more benevolence.
I think Satoshi gave us a very powerful tool when he added Proof of Work to Bitcoin. Before conceding that a full-blown oligarchy is the way to go forward, I’d keep the current system in place and make efforts to decentralize mining and make it popular among holders even if the devices are small and underpowered compared with Bitmain’s beasts.
Bitcoin solo mining is currently witnessing a resurgence thanks to projects such as BitAxe and Braiins BMM 101. I think Zcash should pursue this path too.
Just my two ZECs, maybe a little bit too much coming from the guy that @vaspholdings called a jester or unserious ZCG candidate. Looking forward to your feedback!
And FYI, I wouldn’t mind if the current political bodies became obsolete and a better system replaced them. I just don’t believe that the solutions being proposed are the embodiment of a better system. Token voting has lots of issues that need further consideration, while Proof of Work also needs to get more attention.
