OpenGov.Watch 专访：Polkadot 具有 Web3 生态中最先进的治理系统

The author's governance changed to a model on, the introduction of this new model improved the frequency of network governance, increased the activities of the national treasury, and attracted more holders to participate in the network governance spontaneously, which also further decentralized the governance. In the first interview, we invited a project recently funded by the foundation's decentralization future, which helped guide the community to better participate in governance. Their two co-founders discussed with us the democracy and challenges. Challenge, share, research feedback, whether the treasury's capital expenditure should be conservative or open, and what about the chain governance of other ecosystems? Read on to see the topics you are interested in. The host, the person in charge of ecological research, and the guest co-founder have noticed that this project has recently received funding for decentralized future. What has inspired your interest? What has been improved in this project is very groundbreaking. We will build a global community, which will not only reform the interconnection. The network also expands the possibility of human society. It is a mechanism that allows many people to get together to build an architecture and reach a consensus on something. For example, its consensus mechanism is to bring many different parallel chains together, so that people can concentrate on solving conflicts in the system and build a system that can meet the interests of the majority. It is very advanced and enables us to work in a complex environment. However, many participants do not understand politics but know more about technology and market, so sometimes they make wrong decisions in governance. It is inevitable that our goal is to find out how to optimize the method, including its concept, process and what is effective. We actively monitor activities and promote the formation of leadership to make it easier for people to participate and prevent some problems. I have a background in political science and political sociology and personally like it because it has the most advanced governance system in the ecology, which is one of the reasons why I like it. On the other hand, even if you don't have a lot of money, you can build an ecology and speak out as long as you have your opinion. Reasonable communities will listen, which is the most important point, and through us, more people can see those weak voices. Do you think it can bring real democracy? It has been mentioned that we are not trying to achieve democracy at present, but in my opinion, we have achieved democracy because weak voices can be seen. We do not pursue one person, one vote democracy in the literal sense, but more people participate in ecological governance. A political system usually combines many forces and ideas, including democratic elements and political elements to hold money. The power and technical factors of the participants also have a certain influence, and people with good ideas also have power. It is difficult for us to simply describe what is democratic and what is not. This is a very complicated topic. I noticed that you conducted some research in the community. What feedback did you receive? The first feedback we received was to add functions to enable users in the nominee pool to participate, because the nominee pool does not require the number of users, but at present it needs at least one separately, which is very important. It is a threshold for many people, and this demand is very reasonable. Another problem is that it takes too long for the funds to arrive after the proposal is passed, which makes it difficult for projects that rely on these funds. In fact, how many people voted in it? I have seen several proposals that can be rewarded for participating in governance, but I haven't reached an agreement yet. Are there any ideas for more people to participate? About how to motivate people to participate in the discussion about rewards simply giving voters. Some people suggest that people who have voted on a proposal can be airdropped irregularly, and there are some traditional ways to improve participation, such as holding political elections, where users can entrust their votes to representatives, so that representatives can represent everyone's voices and let people fully understand that their voices are influential. Are you more inclined to spend the funds of the state treasury cautiously or freely? My attitude is more complicated. A few months ago, I was an activist and thought that we should spend as much money as possible from the state treasury. However, I am conservative about large expenditure, and we should be more cautious about such controversial large expenditure. I have different views. I think one of the advantages is that we can fully discuss different opinions. I prefer to spend money wisely. We can spend as much money as possible on very good ideas, but I will be critical of many ideas, so I spend a lot of time thinking about everything and hope to give you a comprehensive map so that everyone can clearly look at it from the perspective of the whole ecology. In the future, people will be more confident about the cost of their application. How does the governance compare with other ecosystems? Do they have a similar chain governance system? Do they have a treasury like this? Are their voting and decision-making processes better? Each ecosystem is very different, but it still has the most advanced governance system in the ecology. I think it is the chain governance and the development is also very perfect. At present, there is no governance system, and their treasury is managed by funds, which will be changed in the future. Many ecosystems with mature democratic governance structures and innovations in the chain are controversial, especially involving the rights and responsibilities of verifiers and currency holders. For example, ecosystems such as Hehe attract verifiers and give them the right to vote. However, in my opinion, verifiers are more like service providers, while currency holders play a more important role in maintaining network security. In contrast, the design of Bitcoin is more reasonable because miners are responsible for the security of the whole network and have certain voting rights. For other ecosystems, although the verifier has provided important services for the network, it is more reasonable for the holders of money to have the right to vote. Some time ago, the inscription brought millions of online transactions to the relay chain, but even if such a project applied for the national treasury, it was rejected. What do you think of the challenges faced by the proposal in China? I personally support this proposal. I am surprised that the proposal was opposed. The main reason may be that they are more active in Asian communities such as WeChat, in order to keep the proposal through different channels. It is very important to be active and build credibility, and how to construct your proposal is also very important. When I first saw the proposal, my first reaction was to question it, but after careful consideration, I think they have created a lot of income for the national treasury and should be rewarded. People usually browse the proposal very quickly, so the title and the first few paragraphs of the proposal are very important. You must seize their attention at the first time and adjust the proposal by cutting in from different directions. Finally, can you share the plan for the next few months? We plan to start publishing reports regularly, including monthly management reports and quarterly national treasury reports to introduce what happened. 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台

注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群

文章转载注明 网址：https://netpsp.com/?id=57015