Why Doesn’t Tezos Need its Founders?

Again, we talk about
some key differentiators, both in terms of the governance front
and the fact that it is actually a self-amending protocol — which like,
again, we talk about that a lot, but it's still worth noting that
actually means we can update on a very rapid timeline, much more rapid
than certain other protocols. But not too rapid! It's the just-right porridge version of a
blockchain in my opinion. So I guess in terms of
it being just right, we've now actually gone through
multiple upgrades. Obviously, to talk about this
happening theoretically, and then actually seeing this happen — in terms of kind of going back to
the first amendment and how that all went down — what struck you the most in terms of
the actual governance process itself, or what surprised you and what
excited you the most about it? Yeah, I mean, well, with the first amendment there was one
thing that Arthur and I were very proud of. And then someone said that
we were really proud of it, and someone spoiled it by
ruining our track record.

So I guess I'll just mention it now! No one asked us our opinion on which
proposal we wanted to win at the first protocol amendment. And I
thought that was quite a coup. That's what we wanted is
something that — basically, when you found something or
when you're an entrepreneur, the tendency is to be a control freak, and defanging yourself is
always a very hard exercise. No good thing stays within the confines of someone just being a dictator about it.

Usually the best projects, the best companies, the best softwares are something that
live far outside of their founders' purview and live past them. So we very much wanted Tezos
to thrive outside of our reins or our opinions. So, no one asked us our opinion on
which proposal we wanted. And then I said this, and then someone asked me my opinion
on the second one and I was like, okay, streak ruined. But that was what I
liked personally from my purview, so obviously I have a
unique perspective on that. And then, yeah, participation has been nuts. I mean, it's
great. And there's tons of delegation, delegators in different flavors that you
could do for this and different bakers.

And some people really try to
capitalize on their stake or their take on different amendments and their
philosophy as one of the rallying calls and differentiators for themselves
as a baker. And I think that's awesome, and that's really how the
process is supposed to be. It's supposed to be a technology — but it's ultimately a coordination technology
and it's kind of futile unless you have a diversity of viewpoints
and people sitting at the table. Sometimes they don't like it, but that's kind of what it's meant to be. So that's what I liked
about the first amendment. And I'm really looking forward to — I guess the next iteration is
going to have privacy preservation, which I think is essential for being competitive
for a lot of the use cases that people want to realize. I just think it's all trending
upwards, obviously. You know, when you're a bit of a
perfectionist, like I am, it's always like a little
tough on the day to day, but I think ultimately I'm super proud
of what's been blossoming over the last year and a half or so in the ecosystem.

You May Also Like