Given that the governance initiative was initiated by, and is completely funded by, Blockstack PBC, there is some risk that its outcome favors PBC at the expense of the community or of more “decentralized” governance. I am an independent consultant, and I will act in as professional and impartial a manner as possible, but at the end of the day, I am accountable to Blockstack PBC since I am paid by PBC.
We should be cognizant of this situation and of our inherent biases, we should combat this with transparency (to the community) and by acting as impartial as we can, and most importantly, governance that’s truly independent of PBC (in terms of budget and accountability) should be established as soon as possible. We should ensure that PBC is not the sole actor responsible for establishing, e.g., the Foundation and appointing its leadership.
Decentralized governance is hard in practice
By its very nature, decentralized governance is slower and less efficient than centralized governance. We must recognize that an independent decision-making process will necessarily be slower than the centralized process that has existed to date, and prepare for it. Several things we can do to prepare include making sure the protocol is in a good place before initiating decentralized governance (so that fewer crucial changes need to be made in the immediate term), making sure the Foundation has sufficient funding for two years of runway (since it may take that long to design and garner support for a more sustainable plan), and only handing the most essential aspects of governance to the “top level,” decentralized system (e.g., PBC should continue to be responsible for its own operations and budget, obviously).
Another idea to explore is “progressive decentralization,” i.e., decentralizing only the most critical components of governance at first, and slowly transitioning everything else.
A Foundation may not be the right structure
The Foundation model has several fundamental challenges and limitations, most notably that it has a centralizing influence and may act as a single point of failure (or, in the case of the Stacks ecosystem, as a second point of failure). It can also be challenging to hold the Foundation to account, if it fails to live up to the expectations of the community or loses values alignment, as we’ve seen with a number of other ostensibly “benevolent” blockchain foundations. There are other models, and indeed, several possibilities have been raised in some of the one-on-one interviews I’ve conducted.
I do believe that establishing a Foundation represents a huge step forward, as long as we consider the role of that Foundation in a broader system of governance, and ensure that it can be held accountable to the community.
The challenge of “hiring” good governance
I am personally skeptical that it’s possible to “hire” good governors from outside of the Stacks ecosystem. While the Board of a putative Foundation should include an outside Director, the other directors, and indeed others in representative positions and positions of authority in ecosystem governance, should ideally be individuals that are well-known to the community, trusted by the community, and are strongly values-aligned and have reputational “skin in the game.” Ideally, these are individuals that have been active in the community for some time; failing that, it could be individuals that are active and well-known in adjacent, values-aligned communities. Governance consisting primarily of those perceived to be outsiders is governance that will struggle to be trusted or perceived as legitimate by the community. It’s governance that may also struggle to understand the unique challenges and opportunities faced by the Stacks project and community.
We may not have the right expertise
Does anyone involved in this governance initiative today have deep experience or expertise in, e.g., non-profit software foundations? We may want to consider hiring someone (notwithstanding the previous challenge!) with deep experience in the Python, Apache, Wikimedia, Mozilla, etc. Foundation.
The role of PBC
Given that the governance initiative was initiated by, and is completely funded by, Blockstack PBC, there is some risk that its outcome favors PBC at the expense of the community or of more “decentralized” governance. I am an independent consultant, and I will act in as professional and impartial a manner as possible, but at the end of the day, I am accountable to Blockstack PBC since I am paid by PBC.
We should be cognizant of this situation and of our inherent biases, we should combat this with transparency (to the community) and by acting as impartial as we can, and most importantly, governance that’s truly independent of PBC (in terms of budget and accountability) should be established as soon as possible. We should ensure that PBC is not the sole actor responsible for establishing, e.g., the Foundation and appointing its leadership.
Decentralized governance is hard in practice
By its very nature, decentralized governance is slower and less efficient than centralized governance. We must recognize that an independent decision-making process will necessarily be slower than the centralized process that has existed to date, and prepare for it. Several things we can do to prepare include making sure the protocol is in a good place before initiating decentralized governance (so that fewer crucial changes need to be made in the immediate term), making sure the Foundation has sufficient funding for two years of runway (since it may take that long to design and garner support for a more sustainable plan), and only handing the most essential aspects of governance to the “top level,” decentralized system (e.g., PBC should continue to be responsible for its own operations and budget, obviously).
Another idea to explore is “progressive decentralization,” i.e., decentralizing only the most critical components of governance at first, and slowly transitioning everything else.
A Foundation may not be the right structure
The Foundation model has several fundamental challenges and limitations, most notably that it has a centralizing influence and may act as a single point of failure (or, in the case of the Stacks ecosystem, as a second point of failure). It can also be challenging to hold the Foundation to account, if it fails to live up to the expectations of the community or loses values alignment, as we’ve seen with a number of other ostensibly “benevolent” blockchain foundations. There are other models, and indeed, several possibilities have been raised in some of the one-on-one interviews I’ve conducted.
I do believe that establishing a Foundation represents a huge step forward, as long as we consider the role of that Foundation in a broader system of governance, and ensure that it can be held accountable to the community.
The challenge of “hiring” good governance
I am personally skeptical that it’s possible to “hire” good governors from outside of the Stacks ecosystem. While the Board of a putative Foundation should include an outside Director, the other directors, and indeed others in representative positions and positions of authority in ecosystem governance, should ideally be individuals that are well-known to the community, trusted by the community, and are strongly values-aligned and have reputational “skin in the game.” Ideally, these are individuals that have been active in the community for some time; failing that, it could be individuals that are active and well-known in adjacent, values-aligned communities. Governance consisting primarily of those perceived to be outsiders is governance that will struggle to be trusted or perceived as legitimate by the community. It’s governance that may also struggle to understand the unique challenges and opportunities faced by the Stacks project and community.
We may not have the right expertise
Does anyone involved in this governance initiative today have deep experience or expertise in, e.g., non-profit software foundations? We may want to consider hiring someone (notwithstanding the previous challenge!) with deep experience in the Python, Apache, Wikimedia, Mozilla, etc. Foundation.