A hybrid governance model on grants from the dev fund - which we have already after ZIP 1016, combines committee oversight (experts), with coinholder voting and advisory polling. In doing so it draws on several forms of legitimacy - which should mean more harmony not less once we all get used to the new ways, and participation in the coinholder voting increases. I also think a simple proposal can tweak the final dial of legitimacy, resulting in:
Continuity (expert legacy): ZCG = majority of committee members - but not all - selected by ZCAP.
Fairness (shared power): authority split between ZCAP-appointed and coinholder-elected members.
Process (transparent mechanisms): also guided by ad-hoc advisory polls from ECC’s ZAC and ZCAP until a futarchy mechanism can be used instead.
Performance (informed decisions): ensured by committee expertise evaluating technical merit and ecosystem impact.
Participation (voter voice): provided via pure coinholder voting on the Coinholder-Directed Retroactive Fund.
This all has more legitimacy than just coinholder voting on its own. I truly believe legitimacy is the key factor in successful governance, and it doesn’t just come from one thing.
Even prominent leadership, and a core team of wise devs with a high degree of influence, can’t get over a lack of legitimacy felt by different stakeholders.