Regarding decentralized governance, we're taking an incremental path. In order to run a cc, there's tons of stuff that needs to happen.
We determined the most contentious of those decisions were consensus changes, and these major decisions would be a good place to start when answering the question "how should cc governance work?"
Our on-chain voting system allows stakeholders to vote on and ultimately activate or ignore proposed consensus changes.
It's easy to argue that decentralized governance is a bad idea when people are so conditioned to accept a centralized governance system.
Bitcoin is centrally planned, operated by Bitcoin Core, funded mainly by Blockstream, and there is no sign of that changing.
We have already seen several debates break out as to whether or not some consensus change should be made - it has held up development progress for years.
It serves to obviate how important aligning the changes in your project with your users are, which BTC does a pretty awful job at.
At least they are expecting more delegated governance. There are also other cc projects in the space with a delegated approach and their users seem to be happy (blindfolded) with that. Decred's voting right is reflected directly in the stake size they hold (...)
My belief is that decentralized governance will lead to a much more productive project, beyond the utility of it being able to make consensus changes in the span of a few months.
If consensus code is the magic engine that runs every cc, then it needs to be refined, built out, debugged, etc.
Endless [bikeshedding](http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Parkinsons-law-of-triviality-bikeshedding) about block size or segwit is just wasting everyone's time.
Let's make a decision and get the ball rolling. with the infrastructure Decred has, we can undo changes that are deemed 'bad' at some later point.
If a VC wants to participate in Decred, they just buy some ...