Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Gilles Champollion
19 followers -
Utopian visionary, startup investor, blockchain enthusiast, bitcoin early adopter, political observer, EquaZone and EquaCoin supporter.
Utopian visionary, startup investor, blockchain enthusiast, bitcoin early adopter, political observer, EquaZone and EquaCoin supporter.

19 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Ethereum discussions: the road to NEO-NAZISM ?

Crypto-currencies, as well as legal tender currencies, cross the life of people and can have a big impact on their future. At present we live under the great deception of central and commercial banks. However, as desirable, in a next future much more cripto-currencies will be used and we shall live in a better world - not in a technocratic regime under the control of a few, very smart, hackers.
Recently, on Slack , we started a discussion about the creation of a new legal entity able to support the Ethereum-Classic stakeholders. After discussing some shared principles, the group went on to discuss a model of Governance.
At present there is a big confusion about what is an open discussion and who is controlling the decisions and their implementation. As anyone experienced in the past, during an open discussion there are basically two kinds of participants: the unquestioning mass - that simply follows the discussion (maybe being not prepared enough at the time of discussion), and one or two persons that manage the flow of the discussion orienting the mass toward the inescapable final decision. This was the case of the endless discussions on Reddit about Ethereum hard Fork, or the related hermetic twits and re-twits on Twitter.
It is really difficult to understand what is the determination of people once the discussion finally comes to an end. Nonetheless suddenly a decision follows, made by someone, who possibly did not even participate into the debate, and the mass when asked agrees that this was a democratic determination following an open discussion.
I'm old enough to know where this way of intending democracy can drive: it is very similar to the first hours of Nazism, when a confused mass was driven towards a goal that a small elite had previously planned. So I would like to recall how a democratic decision is made:
1. Date and place of discussion must be well known to all the stakeholders. There should be time enough to allow participants to be prepared about the matter object of the evaluation.
2. After the discussion, there must be a votation. If it is not immediate, date and place of the votation must be set in advance.
3. The outcome of the poll needs to be reported in writing and the whole process must be "hacker-proof".
Points 1 and 2 can be well managed using open source platforms like "Olocracy", "Bettermeans" or others.
The blockchain technology allows to very well manage point 3.
So, for the future, there are no more excuses. The open discussion is only a mean to reach consensus but every decision must be made with a poll.
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
It is time for a Class Action, hurry !
https://www.bitfinexlawsuit.com/
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded