what do people think about a constitution for blockchain, ala @iang's posts?
to me, it seems there is a knee jerk reaction to the word "governance", but what does "governance" or a "consitution" really mean?
- in my layman opinion, it isn't really a binary question: should there be a constitution or not -- because "not" still implies how a group consitutes itself.
- governance does not mean "immutable". it is a set of conditions to govern growth.
- any design: governance model x, y, z, or "no" design at all is still a design choice. and by making this choice, you are already deciding governance. organizations, bodies, groups, systems, life, grows as a function of their design. growth itself is a function of initial conditions. and if they aren't set, then you may end up with shit.
- what at first may seem like chains of governance, may in the future be the means by which the system is preserved and flourishes. to me, the question is "what is it you wish to preserve", and if you hold it dearly, "how do you ensure that you do that" in a manner that befits the ideal.
i like analogies. consider this as one (lifted from a recent quanta magazine article): https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-heat-kills-cells
- proteins seem as though they are rigid machines only able to perform one specific task, but they morph in times of need, so much, that it seems they are dying - instead they are fortifying and recombining in new ways to help their system grow, but according to design principles baked in them, not because they are ungoverned.
the devil is in the details as much as in the lack of details (e.g. constitution vs no constitution).
Very interesting view!