Be careful out there… listen to what @Brianna says.
I like the federated governance with a central coordination, but it sound like your proposal needs new tokens for each chain and I am totally against multiple tokens. That makes this matter so complex I think - we have one governance token but multiple chains to govern with just one central entity (EC) holding funds for development. I can see one project cannibalising the others and have opposing views (how EC funds are spend f.e.). Especially if we are now fragmenting the community with multiple meme coins I can see that there will be hard debates between communities trying to get funds for further development on “their” chain to drive more traffic and have more revenue.
I can not see how to avoid these “wars” with a federated system other then to evenly distribute the combined revenues on a ll chains. That way every chain will act in the interest of the whole, and still can govern their own chain. We are far not at any point currently to risk being at war with each other.
1 Like
While I’m opposed to multiple DAO’s and governance structures… i somehow see the issue of “chains not communicating” with each other.
A solution imo could be to use what we have in battle tested fashion… but just move it further.
Means, a staker could be issued or hold a representation of VP. This VP is then “usable” to all Sovryn governance instances.
This way a rsk staker has the same “rights” than a BOB staker.
A Sovryn staker on BOB can vote on rsk proposals.
A Sovryn staker on rsk can vote on BOB (or other chains) proposals.
It should not boil down to individual chains and DAOs, but to the core essence of our quadratic stake weighting function (based on amount and duration of SOV staked)
I believe that community and leaders first should agree to
“this is how we want it”
…to then make it happen technically
“how and by which tools we code this”
4 Likes