There's some really good points here. We've been exploring the styles
   of governance ourselves with the Zen project and we've unintentionally
   mirrored the founding of the United States (for better or less). After
   a period of private collaboration we decided to use a synergistic model
   using Core Officers which are elected to provide governance for the
   project and also to govern initiatives that the DAO has funded. This is
   matched with a DAO which provides funding for projects and ultimately
   decides on Core officers (and their fate). Instead of absolute
   stalemate as seen with Bitcoin & Bitcoin Unlimited, there are many ways
   both the Core and DAO could incentivize and also resist change if they
   were to become oppositional.

   And let's not lost sight here that Satoshi himself could probably be
   identified as a benevolent dictator because he did indeed build a
   system nearly by himself and there are persons today that still try to
   carry out his will. In fact, some believe that any alteration that
   breaks the current Bitcoin model is only a corruption of the true
   spirit of Bitcoin.

   All hail Satoshi.

   @movrcx

   https://zencash.io

   Sent from [1]ProtonMail, encrypted email based in Switzerland.

   -------- Original Message --------

   Subject: Governance vs Decentralised Systems, Gold, Cash, Bitcoin

   Local Time: March 18, 2017 3:58 PM

   UTC Time: March 18, 2017 7:58 PM

   From: grarpamp@gmail.com

   To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtwaW79Fj7c

   Governance problems which have allowed skeptics in the media to

   latch on to the failures of decentralised systems. Decentralisation

   isn't a Boolean, it's a range. Is it much more decentralised than

   anything we've built before, including its governance? Yes. You

   will not notice that developers and miners really don't have control

   to effect change until something goes wrong, until there's a highly

   contentious issue. They may want to offer a straightforward, direct,

   and simple solution, but the system won't let them do that. Lead

   developers can make limited decisions about what they include in

   the code, but with blockchains you can either have opinions or

   continue to make money; if your opinions get too strong, you stop

   making money. Governance in these systems is tricky because by

   making those explicit trade-offs, we get liberty. If you want to

   have quick / simple / easy solutions, you will elect a dictator.

   The trains may run on time, but the destination might be a death

   camp, an efficient operation for killing people. Democracy is

   incredibly inefficient, but we practice it anyway because we

   appreciate the trade-offs that it gives us: self-expression;

   self-determination; freedom of association, of religion, of

   consciousness. Governance in network-centric systems are open to

   permissionless access and innovation, systems which exhibit a very

   high degree of autonomy and censorship resistance. The price we pay

   is that our debates are loud, messy, and sometimes don't end, because

   there's no centralised authority to filter everyone's opinions;

   that's how corporations and governments run. We've tried that, and

   if we want that kind of money, we have that kind of money. The

   bottom line is that this not an accident, it's an explicit trade-off:

   efficiency is the price we pay to buy liberty. I will pay that price

   because I can apply engineering optimisation to efficiency; Bitcoin

   and Ethereum were the first times I could apply engineering

   optimisation to liberty.

   Currency Wars, Bitcoin Neutrality

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0o_Mg5hY4g

   Shorter Version

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diw-5vWVW5o

   India

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J_RVI0ZdRE

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLNZ_ydSqnM

   No Gold, No Wedding

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUr2E4dfs0Y

   https://financial-risk-solutions.thomsonreuters.info/GFMS

   https://trmcs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/377d4e994bb540b286d7ccf30b81be
   ce_20160331023311_gfms_gold_survey_2016_2.pdf

   https://trmcs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/377d4e994bb540b286d7ccf30b81be
   ce_20160505120341_World%20Silver%20Survey%202016.pdf

   https://trmcs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/377d4e994bb540b286d7ccf30b81be
   ce_20160512074418_GFMS%20Platinum%20Group%20Metals%20Survey%202016.pdf

   https://trmcs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/377d4e994bb540b286d7ccf30b81be
   ce_20160405034444_GFMS%20Copper%20Survey%202016.pdf

   https://trmcs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/ec6fa1ac9669b3b012c82751078190
   88_20161026080134_GFMS%20Base%20Metals%20Review%202016Final.pdf

   Bitcoin

   https://data.bitcoinity.org/markets/volume/30d

   https://coinmarketcap.com/

References

   1. https://protonmail.ch/