There is an extremely simple way to decentralize ICP:
Let every member of DFINITY and ICA be elected periodically by NNS.
I really wonder why that cannot happen. Could anyone explain it to me?
It seems to be the final form of decentralization of any public blockchain with POS.
This is the real meaning of Democracy:
If you are elected by NNS, then only NNS can fire you.
That actually empowers everyone in DFINITY and ICA.
Furthermore, through the NNS elections of DFINITY and ICA, those ICP controlled by DFINITY and ICA will become some form of “Public Money”, which must be a big thing to the IC community.
I simply want to ask: WHY?
If DFINITY and ICA members are all elected through NNS, then ICP will become the most decentralized public blockchain. Even Bitcoin cannot be so decentralized because it cannot have a suitable election mechanism like NNS.
PS: I am not suggesting that decentralization is the best thing; I am just saying that it is easy for ICP to be most decentralized.
Could you explain it to me in detail? I am really confused. It seems to be such a good and natural idea.
Many community leaders want ICP to be more decentralized, and as a result they just make the NNS voting mechanism more and more ugly.
If DFINITY and ICA members are all elected through NNS, then even Bitcoin and ETH cannot be more decentralized than ICP.
Bro this would actually make the NNS far more centralized. There are competing interests in the DAO. Putting one organization specially the foundation in charge of everything is the opposite of what decentralization is.
Decentralization => Free Competition of Interests.
If DFINITY and ICA are not elected through NNS, then they are the main opposite of ICP decentralization.
But if DFINITY and ICA are elected through NNS, then they are truly decentralized, and thus ICP can be truly decentralized as long as no ICP whale controls more ICP than DFINITY and ICA.
There are two things that we can use to achieve the final decentralization of ICP:
NNS and Anonymity.
NNS deals with conflicts of interests, while Anonymity can protect us from the Tyranny of the Majority:
If you like an NNS proposal, then you can vote YES; if you hate it, then you can vote NO, and meanwhile don’t let anyone know your ICP account ID so you can be truly anonymous.
What I meant is that a protocol like ICP is composed of many sovereign entities, each with their own hierarchies, goals, resources, etc…
I believe the ICP will be served by having a community of non-profits, for-profit startups, DAOs, universities, etc… all collaborating (like the Internet itself).
Let every member of DFINITY and ICA be elected periodically by NNS.
Practical reasons why I think does not make sense:
DFINITY employs 270+ people. Will all their work be evaluated and properly assessed by the community? What if I do off-line, non-coding work like work in office management? Will community vote on that too? Will community give me comp raises? Will community scold me for being uncollaborative or rude to my peers?
Does making the system above sound the system or culture that would create a team where great people want to work? Who does the hiring at all? Who interviews?
Philosophical reasons:
Employees of DFINITY do not work for the NNS. They work for DFINITY. DFINITY is one sovereign entity (of many) working for the benefit of the IC. To equate the IC and DFINITY is not right.
If community wants to elevate other entities within the community, they can follow non-DFINITY neurons or other already existing tactics
Furthermore, through the NNS elections of DFINITY and ICA, those ICP controlled by DFINITY and ICA will become some form of “Public Money”, which must be a big thing to the IC community.
What is the intent here? What do you think will be the benefit of this? (enough to override the sovereignty of an organization).
Thank you for your reply. But I am now even more confused.
The DFINITY Foundation is said to be a non-profit organization. But I cannot find any details about the operation of DFINTITY through https://dfinity.org/. How do they hire employees including managers? It is just Dominic’s personal decision, or there is indeed a democratic process in DFINITY?
It should be an honor to be elected by NNS, not the contrary. Otherwise, you might be thinking that the NNS voting mechanism is indeed a joke.
ICP is a global blockchain, and hence I don’t think the elections of several hundreds or even thousands of employees can be or should be difficult for NNS. All related problems can be dealt with through NNS. Nothing will be much different from the current situation, except that there should be an NNS voting in the final.
The NNS election of DFINITY and ICA can make ICP a truly most decentralized public blockchain, and I believe it is good for everyone in the IC Community. Whether it is good for DFINTITY and ICA depends on the nature of DFINITY and ICA. But for now I really cannot understand the real nature of DFINITY and ICA.
I am not saying that the NNS election of DFINITY and ICA will necessarily be a better form of organization; I am just saying that the true decentralization of a public blockchain can be realized for the first time through the NNS of ICP. Neither BTC nor ETH is truly decentralized, and I even think they can never be. But ICP can be truly decentralized because of NNS, and the NNS election of DFINITY and ICA is the final step of this decentralization. Of course this is not a short-term action, but it should be a future plan that is definitely worth trying.
Imagine that one day someone will secretly collect 51% of ICP voting power and thus will fully control the NNS voting without anyone knowing it. But if before this, DFINITY democratically elected by NNS can have 51% of ICP voting power, then no one will be able to control the NNS voting secretly.