I’ll try and make it a point to read your book this week.
Initally, I was pretty with @ivmitko.
Upon re-reading, almost felt that there’s a need for many, concurrent systems that play by different rules. Different things should be governed differently, just like how people are different.
I would leave as little governance as possible in the hands of the BP’s.
I agree. I think this has been addressed though, the important thing will be that members be able to communicate in the language of the Community they intend to join, and attend meetings at the times scheduled by that Community. However language may be the initial distinguishing feature of each Community.
After seeing what is possible in the crypto world, the first step towards setting up any sort of stake weighting in the governance of a system must be insuring the members want to govern the system, know what it entails, and that the failure to meet minimum standards set is coded for their automatic dismissal.
If the oligarchs of a system have their interests aligned with the betterment of the system, it doesn’t have to be necessarily a bad system of governance as long as they consistently have better outcomes and ideas to source from, however, this system would be missing out on the wisdom of the masses, which guarantees to have at least more probability of coming up with better ideas.
Lastly, “Democracy” already has all of the propaganda done for it, even if it was a dictatorship, I’d call it a democracy of 1, no need to change the name, especially since this is creating a more functional democracy. Instead, I’d suggest calling this Democratia Ultra.
Love the direction you’re headed. I am working on similar models. This area of exploration is very fascinating and speaks to the universal nature of things. If you ever have room for a spectator on your Sunday discussions, I would love to listen in.
All The Best,
GB
(@Cosmos - Telegram)