On-Chain Governance Demystified

by

Upravljanje na lancu odnosi se na sistem koji upravlja i implementira promjene u blockchain-ovima kriptovaluta. Ovo upravljanje se razlikuje od drugih tipova upravljanja. To je zato što su pravila koja uvode promjene kodirana u blockchain protokolu. Osim toga, programeri predlažu promjene putem ažuriranja koda, a svaki čvor glasa da li treba da odbije ili prihvati predložene promjene.

On-chain upravljanje je način nadogradnje blockchain protokola putem glasanja na lancu. Razlikuje se od upravljanja van lanca jer je potrebna saglasnost svih zainteresovanih strana u nadogradnji njihovog softvera. Zainteresovane strane uključuju korisnike, rudare, operatere čvorova, kao i osnovne programere.

Upravljanje na lancu je drugačije jer svako može predložiti promjenu koda u protokolu . Nakon toga, vlasnici tokena glasaju tokom perioda kodiranog glasanja da li kod treba biti integrisan ili ne. Osim toga, sistem omogućava glasovni poziv svim vlasnicima tokena i nudi efikasniji način rješavanja sporova.

Razumijevanje upravljanja na lancu

Iako većina ljudi smatra da u kripto , postoji neformalni sistem, to nije slučaj jer Blockchain forks dokazuje da je to pogrešno. Primjer je 2016. kada je došlo do poboljšanja u kripto svijetu gdje je Ethereum podijeljen na Ethereum Classic i Ethereum. Ranije su programeri predložili još jedno poboljšanje, koje je bilo brže i lakše za implementaciju. Nažalost, njegova implementacija je bila neuspješna jer bi rezultirala gubicima.

Mehanizmi upravljanja na lancu

Prvi mehanizam je podsticaj. U izjednačavanju terena za sve aktere, odnosno igrače, dolazi do promjene u kontroli. Kontrola dolazi od rudara do programera, a zatim do korisnika. Na primjer, u nekim slučajevima, programeri i korisnici mogu se zalagati za izmjene kako bi se smanjile transakcijske naknade. Takve modifikacije mogu rudare staviti u nepovoljniji položaj i to može učiniti mrežu ekonomski neodrživom. Na isti način, rudari se mogu zalagati za nadogradnje povećavajući nagrade za blokove. Dugoročno, ovo može naštetiti mreži.

Informacija je drugi mehanizam. U ovom slučaju, on-chain zahtijeva transparentnost informacija kao kod upravljanja izvan lanca. Pristup donošenja odluka je decentralizovan i efikasan jer jedna osoba ne utiče na njega. Umjesto toga, to postiže zajednica. Osim toga, postoji veća transparentnost jer svaki pojedinac može pogledati kodeks i vidjeti način na koji se donose odluke. Kroz njega možete vidjeti i način na koji vidite proces uspostavljanja konsenzusa.

Poslednji mehanizam je konsenzus. U upravljanju na lancu glasanje se vrši direktno putem protokola. Dakle, tehnika konsenzusa je ista kao i stil direktnog demokratskog glasanja. To je zato što se odluke direktno donose u protokolu distribuirane knjige.

Prednosti upravljanja na lancu

Upravljanje na lancu je dobro jer razvija obavezujuće sporazume. Stoga su u stanju eliminirati neizvjesnosti koje okružuju promjene. Oni također osiguravaju da se implementira svaka uspješna izglasana promjena koda.

Odgovornost

On-chain upravljanje povećava odgovornost. To je zato što se sva ažuriranja o odluci mogu pronaći, pa čak i pratiti. Štaviše, postoje neki oblici transparentnosti. Transparentnost jača dosljedne ideje i pravičnost, a također nudi korisnicima priliku da saznaju može li im se blockchain zajednica pridružiti prije nego što bilo šta počine. U upravljanju na lancu, sve odluke se donose transparentno i zainteresovane strane treba da znaju pre bilo kakvog procesa glasanja.

Decentralizovani proces donošenja odluka

Upravljanje na lancu poboljšava decentralizirani proces donošenja odluka . To čini tako što svakom entitetu koji drži blockchain tokene daje da glasa o bilo kakvim promjenama protokola. U neformalnim sistemima, operateri čvorova i korisnici mogu signalizirati samo na druge načine. Oni mogu uključivati mailing liste, stranice društvenih medija i forume zajednice. To znači da u poređenju sa on-chain upravljanjem, oni ne mogu direktno utjecati na promjene.

Brži konsenzus

Kroz upravljanje na lancu, dolazi do bržeg konsenzusa. Promjene koda mogu se brzo implementirati jer postoji kodirani period glasanja. Zainteresovane strane znaju da obično postoji fiksni vremenski period u kojem postoji određeno vrijeme kada oni signaliziraju svoje neodobravanje ili podršku za ažuriranje koda. Razlikuje se od neformalnog sistema u kojem ljudi mogu beskonačno raspravljati o ažuriranjima koda.

Nekoliko zlonamjernih tvrdih vilica

U upravljanju na lancu, postoji manje zlonamjernih hard forkova . Ova vrsta upravljanja u velikoj mjeri pomaže u odvraćanju od hard forkova. Da li znate kada se dešavaju hard forkovi? One se dešavaju kada se neke od zainteresovanih strana ne mogu složiti sa rezolucijom u vezi sa izmjenama protokola. Ove viljuške mogu biti štetne jer se mreža takmiči za iste korisnike i brend. Stoga, upravljanje na lancu sprečava hard fork jer se zainteresovane strane osjećaju da imaju pravo glasa u slučaju da imaju pravičnu riječ o načinu na koji bi se protokol trebao prilagoditi.

Nedostaci upravljanja na lancu

Prvo ograničenje ove vrste upravljanja je to što sistem jednostavno dozvoljava nisku izlaznost birača. Takođe, ima tendenciju da ima manipulaciju glasača od strane moćnih držača tokena. Drugi nedostatak je što sistem koristi samo moćnim držačima tokena. To im daje priliku da utiču na buduće odluke koje će se uglavnom fokusirati na profit. Oni se ne bave postizanjem ciljeva javnih blockchaina.

On-Chain Governance Demystified

by

On-chain governance refers to a system that manages and implements changes to the blockchains of cryptocurrencies. This governance is different from the other types of governance. This is because rules that institute the changes are encoded in the blockchain protocol. In addition, developers do propose changes through code updates, and every node votes if they should reject or accept the proposed changes.

On-chain governance is a way of upgrading the blockchain protocols through on-chain voting. It is different from off-chain governance because that one needs the agreement of all the stakeholders in upgrading their software. The stakeholders include users, miners, node operators, as well as core developers.

On-chain governance is different as anyone may propose a code change in the protocol. After that, the token holders vote during an encoded voting period whether the code should be integrated or not. In addition, the system provides a voice call to all the token holders and offers a more efficient way to settle disputes.

Understanding On-Chain Governance

Even though most people that in crypto, there is an informal system, that is not the case as Blockchain forks prove it wrong. An example is 2016 when there was an improvement in the crypto world where Ethereum was divided into Ethereum Classic and Ethereum. Earlier on, the developers proposed another improvement, which was faster and easier to implement. Unfortunately, its implementation was unsuccessful as it would have resulted in losses.

Mechanisms of On-Chain Governance

The first mechanism is an incentive. In leveling the playing field for all the stakeholders or rather players, there is a shift in control. The control comes from the miners to the developers and then to the users. For instance, in some cases, the developers and users may advocate for modifications to reduce transaction fees. Such modifications may make the miners disadvantaged and this can make the network economically unsustainable. In the same way, the miners may advocate for upgrades increasing block rewards. In the long run, this may harm the network.

Information is the second mechanism. In this case, on-chain requires information transparency like in off-chain governance. The decision-making approach is decentralized and effective as one person does not influence it. Instead, it is achieved by a community. In addition, there is more transparency as every individual may look at the code and see the way decisions are made. Through it, you may also see the way see the process of establishing consensus.

The last mechanism is consensus. In the on-chain governance, voting is directly done through the protocol. Thus, the technique of consensus is the same as the direct democratic voting style. This is because the decisions are directly made in distributed ledger protocol.

The Advantages of On-chain Governance

On-chain governance is good as it develops binding agreements. Therefore, they are able to eliminate uncertainties that surround changes. They also ensure that any successful code change voted is implemented.

Accountability

On-chain governance enhances accountability. This is because all the updates about a decision can be found and even tracked. Moreover, there are some forms of transparency. Being transparent reinforces consistent ideas and fairness and also offers the users the chance of knowing if a blockchain community may join them before committing anything.  In the on-chain governance, all the decisions are made transparent and the stakeholders should know before any voting process takes place.

Decentralized Decision-Making Process

On-chain governance enhances the decentralized decision-making process. It does this by giving any entity that holds blockchain tokens to vote on any protocol changes. In informal systems, the node operators and users may only signal through other ways. They may include mailing lists, social media sites, and community forums. This means that as compared to the on-chain governance, they cannot directly influence changes.

Quicker Consensus

Through the on-chain governance, there is quicker consensus. The code changes may be implemented quickly as there are encoded voting period. Stakeholders know that there is usually a fixed period of time where there is a fixed time that they signal their disapproval or support for a code update. It is different from the informal system where people can indefinitely debate about the code updates.

Few Malicious Hard Forks

In the on-chain governance, there are fewer malicious hard forks. This kind of governance highly helps in deterring the hard forks. Do you know when hard forks take place? They do occur when some of the stakeholders cannot agree to a resolution regarding protocol changes. These forks may be damaging as the network competes for the same users and brand. Therefore, the on-chain governance averts the hard fork as stakeholders feel enfranchised in case, they have a fair say regarding the way protocol should adapt.

The Disadvantages of On-chain Governance

The first limitation of this type of governance is that the system just allows low voter turnout. Also, it tends to have voter manipulation by the token holders who are powerful. The other disadvantage is that the system just benefits the powerful token holders. This gives them the chance of influencing future decisions which will mainly focus on profits. They are not concerned with achieving public blockchains’ goals.