https://etherscan.io/tx/0xd6040e1974a0e4cd10014320e5119f74150e1de05ad6ba862fa1705a8cb7cc6f
gm or gn.
I think the current question of community spending is a great time to reflect on DAOs, governance, and trust.
The immutability of smart contracts has removed the need for trustful relationships on chain. However, that just pushes the trust to the edges - where the blockchain meets the meat-world.
For dealing with that boundary we must instead engage forms of risk management.
The benefits of a community marketing apparatus are obvious. The risks are that those funds will be taken by any one they are allocated to.
So the X7 Development team managed that risk:
1. Using a multi-signature wallet is one form of risk management.
2. The number of total signers and the number of signers needed to make a change balances the need for speedy execution and the difficulty of conspiracy.
3. Losses through this outflow are capped by only allocating a portion of proceeds to it.
4. The ability to cut off funding of the multi-signature wallet if the signers form a malevolent faction is retained (now via the dev team and in the future via the DAO governance process).
Our favorite mantra is true. Trust no one. Trust code.
But if you MUST trust someone, then you must engage in operational risk management:
* Accept risk when benefits outweigh the cost.
* Accept no unnecessary risk.
* Anticipate and manage risk by planning.
* Make risk decisions in the right time at the right level.
As X7 matures there will be some processes which can be codified, deployed, and executed upon in a trustless manner.
We look forward to lively debate on this issue. Discussion and debate, engagement in decision making, explanation of risks and benefits - these are muscles we must excercise on the small decisions so we will be ready when there are big important decisions to be made.
The community will voice their opinion.
The X7 development team voiced ours when we allocated those funds and gave over control to the current signers.
Long Live DeFi.
