Recently, some community members proposed increasing the total amount of HDAO tokens, which caused a lot of discussion.They believe that the current number of HDAO tokens is not conducive to community development and cannot attract more forces to participate in community construction and maximize community interests.
In fact, it’s really a community problem. However, the right to govern is the most important and fundamental right of a community. Careful thinking is needed in changing the distribution of governance.
The blockchain community is new, and there are no particularly successful governance cases to refer to. The Sushi community was supposed to be promising, but it turned out to be a failure.
Reference:
Fortunately, we can look to history for answers, especially the history of the United States.To me, the history of The United States is essentially a history of community building.And I know from American history that community governance comes from God.
In 1615 the Mayflower was successfully built.On September 6, 1620, the ship set sail from Plymouth, England, with a crew of 102 men, women and children, bound for what is now Massachusetts in the United States. Of these, 35 were Puritans and 67 were “strangers” (non-puritans).
A political declaration signed on 11 November 1620 on board the Mayflower by 41 of these adult men before the ship came ashore, agreeing to create and submit to a government.This political statement was called the Mayflower Compact.The Mayflower Compact marks the beginning of the formation of the embryonic United States and is considered by historians to be the birth certificate of the United States.
“IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620. ”
The fact that，Thirteen years before the Mayflower landing, the British had already established colonies in North America.However, at that time the governance of this colony was under British control, unlike Massachusetts, where governance was controlled by the people living there.History began to change from this moment.
After more than 150 years of development, the conflict between Britain and the North American colonies began to intensify, culminating in the independence of North America in 1776.
In a way, the history of the development of the hen community is very similar to that of the United States. Artists and art lovers from all over the world now come together.In the beginning, Rafael Lima had the power to influence the governance of the community, then he left and the community became independent and was governed by its members.
So, the question arises, will community governance rights need to be redistributed after Rafael Lima’s departure? And if so how should they be distributed?From the perspective of American independence, how should American governance be redistributed after the suzerain state, Britain, loses control of governance?
History tells us that the right to govern the United States was controlled by the then 13 independent states. Later, as the United States acquired more land, the United States became home to 50 states and the right to govern the United States was no longer controlled by the 13 states of the past.It is important to recall that the expansion of the right to govern in the United States from 13 states to more states has taken place over a period of more than 200 years in between.
Also, in the beginning only the white community had the right to govern in the United States, other people of colour did not. Later, as history progressed, people from Africa and people from Asia were given the right to govern.
From this history, we can draw two lessons.
Firstly, the distribution of governance power changes as the membership of the community body changes.
Secondly, changes in governance rights are gradual and do not occur over a short period of time.
Why?
If the distribution of governance rights in a community does not change, the whole community system is solidified, which is not conducive to cohesion and development and building. However, if the distribution of governance power in a community changes dramatically in a short period of time, the whole community system is unstable and can bring an element of division and divisive values to the community.
Therefore, for hen communities, their development should follow a similar pattern. Not changing the distribution of community governance is not conducive to attracting more contributors to the community, and allowing a dramatic change in the distribution of governance in the short term can affect the stability of the community and make it difficult to develop a strong community consensus. The end result could be a split, as in the case of the sushi community.
Therefore, depending on the current stage of the hen community, it may be premature to increase the options for governance token hdao distribution. The community has just gone through a chaotic phase and needs to think and build calmly. Increasing the governance token allocation would inevitably result in the governance rights of many people who have been supporting the development of the community being compromised, and may also allow people who do not conform to the values of the hen community to enter the community in large numbers, increasing the level of chaos in the community.
From a rational point of view, people who contribute to the hen community are not necessarily members of the hen community and may sometimes be driven by personal selfish interests. If these people have too much of a voice in the community, the hen community may lose its vision.
Do contributor incentives have to be in hdao tokens?
For example, allocating some protocol fees to short-term developers, marketing and operations staff is a good way to do this. If a developer, or another contributor, has made a long term and substantial contribution to the hen community, it is possible to use the protocol fee to buy hdao tokens to distribute to them.
This ensures that the interests of early contributors are protected, while maintaining the interests of new contributors. Of course, there are various clever ways to implement this in practice. But in any case, simply issuing additional tokens does not make sense from a historical perspective.
Community governance is given by God,We should be careful with the gifts of God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------by jackgogogo ：）