Election conversations: what can we learn from other foundations?

[okj]

Would absolutely be happy/ willing to contribute to this as well.

Adding on to the excellent comments made by @corporal_clegg I think it’s important to consider the future of NEM- a lot of foundation governed chains view themselves as temporary custodians until on chain governance can be done; see the Tezos foundation for instance where they plan to “let go” of the reins as the ecosystem matures. Is that a possible/ desirable future for NEM?

r/tezos - Tezos Governance Elections and Voting Protocols

At the same time on chain governance is NOT an end all be all solution. Just look at the mess that is EOS voting- fractured on geopolitical lines with terrible allegations of voter manipulation. A very low turnout rate too.

https://eosauthority.com/voting

Cardano is a right up mess. As it goes I am fearful that if we don’t get things sorted out we may be headed in that direction.

Aside from looking at blockchain governance, perhaps it would be interesting to look at models from other self-regulated industries? The blockchain space is really where we are all struggling- everybody is going through growing pains of some sort and maybe governance is one area we can turn to the old system to look at what has or hasn’t worked.

[okj]

In terms of transparency/ access to information… In the first place I’ve tried looking up the catapult whitepaper and it’s been taken down from the foundation website. I had to go around trawling the net until I looked at Github. Why isn’t this displayed as part of foundation materials?

Aside from that there’s no real reliable database of NEM projects. There’s a list on Github but it’s got plenty of projects that have shifted away/ stalled such as Bankera and Blockgrain etc. It makes sense for the foundation to have this kind of information on hand: project, its whitepaper, how it integrates NEM, some kind of progress tracker. This sort of data should be available to the community and should be immensely helpful for foundation teams as they try to figure out a roadmap / how to pitch/ keep people on our blockchain.

[jason.lee]

I don’t think that it’s good idea to reveal publicly names of Foundation Fund key holders. It can put them in danger. This should be well thought out.

But I agree about financial transparency.

Yes, it would have to be decided what is the most wise and tact decision.

a lot of foundation governed chains view themselves as temporary custodians until on chain governance can be done; see the Tezos foundation for instance where they plan to “let go” of the reins as the ecosystem matures. Is that a possible/ desirable future for NEM?

Well, best case scenario is that it really becomes a self-operating governance system. I’ll reserve comments on DAOs for now…That is probably a longer term aspiration as part of the ‘100-year plan’ but definitely worth thinking a lot more deeply about. Thanks for bringing that up!

Aside from looking at blockchain governance, perhaps it would be interesting to look at models from other self-regulated industries?

Yes we will need to start assembling a team to look into self-regulated industries, it will be part of my mandate

Why isn’t this displayed as part of foundation materials?

I will be pushing for single location where all information will be placed, this should be one of the top priorities, to have access to an online link with regularly updated information on NEM.

Aside from that there’s no real reliable database of NEM projects. There’s a list on Github but it’s got plenty of projects that have shifted away/ stalled such as Bankera and Blockgrain etc. It makes sense for the foundation to have this kind of information on hand: project, its whitepaper, how it integrates NEM, some kind of progress tracker. This sort of data should be available to the community and should be immensely helpful for foundation teams as they try to figure out a roadmap / how to pitch/ keep people on our blockchain.

Noted on on all this. Thanks! Constructive.