Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'governance'.
Found 5 results
Minimum search term is 4 characters long. Can't find what you want? Click here for the custom google search instead.
Proposal for Improved Governance?
shekenahglory posted a topic in Technical DiscussionI had a thought a potential improvement to governance that might be worth considering. In the current system, the validators have all the governance authority through amendment voting. But the community of stakeholders is much larger, and notably missing is a mechanism for XRP holders to have some say in governance. Perhaps it would make sense to create a mechanism where XRP holders can have some say. It may not make sense to have stakeholders vote on amendments, I can see some drawbacks to that - but what might make sense is giving stakeholders the ability to veto an amendment with sufficient XRP holder consensus, and the ability to signal support or opposition to a proposed amendment (or perhaps any proposed amendment that gains a threshold of validator support, but not enough to be enabled). It would be checks and balances of sorts, an additional "branch" of government that can give a more diverse voice on important decisions. It seems like the current system where validators have all the authority could allow them to change the rules in ways XRP holders might oppose, such as creating more XRP to pay themselves for validation, destroying an account's balance, or censoring transactions. Not that there's any indication right now they would support such amendments, but theoretically could. Putting up roadblocks to those kind of amendments could provide another measure of censorship resistance and surety for XRP holders that their balances won't be easily stolen or inflated away against their will. Of course this would involve validators giving up a measure of authority that they have. They may need to be incentivized to do this, so a proposed amendment might have a mechanism where the XRP holders can incentivize adoption of the proposal by essentially buying the right to veto - XRP holders could contribute to an escrow that gets distributed to validators if the proposed amendment succeeds. That could also strengthen governance by creating more of an overlap in motivations between validators and XRP holders desire to protect the value of XRP by giving validators a larger stake in XRP. Could also provide a nice one time reward for validators who have put forth a lot of energy into keeping the ledger moving forward without an expectation of direct compensation. @JoelKatz @nikb @mDuo13 @Wietse I would love to hear your thoughts if you have any.
And you thought Bitcoin hard Forks were bad: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/monero-just-hard-forked-and-it-resulted-four-new-projects/ Just shows the increasing importance of and need for coins that focus on responsible governance and have such mechanisms built into their crypto networks to avoid the fracturing of projects.
XRP Governance vs Bitcoin Governance
Hodor posted a topic in General DiscussionThe forks for Bitcoin are once again causing market uncertainty and unstable prices; I break down the fork news and talk about the differences between how Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP code is governed. Can you guess which of those three has the type of enterprise-level code governance that banks and FIs will want? Hope you enjoy the read & feel free to leave any feedback below. As usual, please feel free to share my blog on any other media, and thank you for doing so! My blog announcements on other media: Twitter Reddit Bitcointalk - alt coin sub forum Bitcointalk - XRP speculation thread
Governance - Response policy to cyber-attack?
culyun posted a topic in General DiscussionGiven Ripple's (the company) unique position, I would like to know whether Ripple has policies in place for responding to compromises in the security of the central ledger and protocols? There's a lot of (well written) software and protocols backing all that is Ripple. Software has bugs. Protocols have mis-features. All of these >> can << open the door to cyber-attack. I want to know if Ripple has thought about how to deal with these crises? Picture a (worst-case?) scenario where the central ledger had to be taken off-line for some reason. Would Ripple warranty against losses incurred by customers needing to make transactions? Apologies if this is a daft question.