Staci Warden Addressed the Goals of Governance

self.AlgorandOfficial1m ago
In the latest [All Hands]( event, the first question that they addressed was one that I have been asking for awhile now: What are the goals of governance? Staci Warden answered the question: >We have a philosophy of civic engagement on this protocol. For example, famously, we don’t pay for consensus. We don’t pay for participation in consensus. We have an idea that is kind of a part of the bedrock of our community that you should participate and that you should have some kind of civic duty for being a part of this protocol. So governance is an outgrowth of that. The participation of rewards were not particularly participatory actually. So we are now giving governance rewards for governors. The way that you can be a governor is to participate, again, in this ecosystem. … **It is part of our long-term vision of the community being the protocol, and more decentralization of important decisions, and more decentralized engagement. Those always have been the goals of community governance, and they continue to be.** Hopefully that accurately captured what she said, but if I made an error in transcribing, please let me know! First of all, I'm going to be as charitable as possible with her response, because a Q&A format of the type she was participating in is far, far more difficult than being able to take the time to write out a concise answer. However, that having been said, I'm still left with a lot of questions based on her response. The primary goal of governance seems to be decentralized engagement of the community, including decentralization of decision-making, as part of a broader philosophy of civic engagement. *How does funneling governance rewards into DeFi promote that goal?* I'm not necessarily against artificially propping up DeFi if there is a clear path forward towards those projects eventually being sustainable without continued Foundation funding. Based on the stated goal of governance, it is not the appropriate mechanism for intervening though--that is what programs such as Aeneas are for. If governance is currently unintentionally harming DeFi, which is a reasonable argument, then conflict between the two can be reduced without swinging all the way over to active incentives. **Furthermore, letting DeFi projects vote simply creates more whale votes, which diminishes the choices made by individuals. That is centralization of voting, not decentralization, which is directly counter to the Foundation's stated goal.** The fact that the Foundation is backing an option that appears to run counter to their overall goal of governance is perplexing. **The Foundation really needs to have more town hall meetings with the community, and then draft a clear, coherent roadmap for governance, with clearly articulated benchmarks for success.** We can then vote as needed to modify the plan they put forth.