This is probably the most controversial blockchain thought that has ever crossed my mind. And hell, I’m not even sure if I would think the same tomorrow.

Maybe I’ll remember some new aspect that I might’ve missed while typing this.

Maybe someone would point some brilliant points in the comment section and introduce us me to a new perspective to explore.

Or maybe I will discover some new data that makes me re-access the whole thing again.

But meanwhile, I’m stuck with this new thought I just can’t shake, and I want to share it with you.

Earlier today, I was reading an article that a friend shared and my eyes landed on the most peculiar observation. An observation that strangely enough, had nothing to do with the article itself.

Funny how the mind works.

The sentence in question was dealing with the fact that despite all efforts that Ethereum spent in an unprecedented and highly publicized campaign, they only managed to get the 4% of the user base participating in the voting process.

Only 4%, huh? I wonder what the turn out would’ve been without any publicity nor campaign, But I’m digressing.

So what does that tells us? That probably 96% of the users have little to no interest in getting involved in politics or voting for policies.

Here’s a weird question. How much percent of that 4% come from the loudest minority? Every community has that, and that’s certainly a factor to consider.

But let’s toss that aside for a minute because there’s a new philosophical question that arises:

If the majority are not interested into politics, what need do we have for politics in the first place?

I mean, one of the reasons why people root for blockchain technologies is to escape the often corrupt, always deficient political system that people gave up on long ago.

And let’s not forget, one of the most common criticisms we hear about the political system in modern society is the lack of sufficient research and due diligence the voter do before voting.

For example:

The average man spends anywhere between a few hours and a few days when it comes to buying a car.

They need to look for competitive prices, check the engine, take it for a test drive, get a second opinion… Etc.

When they want to buy a house, it takes even longer.

They inspect the property, asks the neighbours, check with the notary, search if there are some good schools nearby for their children to go to… Etc.

That due diligence takes days if not weeks, and for good reason because it’s not a decision you want to take lightly.

But when it comes to voting for the president of the nation, how long does it take to make a decision?

3 seconds.

That’s it. People just vote for the one who says the things they agree with the most. Or even worse, they just vote against the other guy, which is a little closer to the truth.

In case you’re wondering why “The Lesser of Two Evils” is always the main title of each presidential elections.

So the new question becomes: To which degree it remains a good idea to copy governance principles from a the very system we’re always disappointed with.

Especially if 96% of the users are not even interested and/or they don’t deem themselves knowledgeable enough of to decide on certain key points.

Let’s face it, most users are probably busy with their own jobs too, and probably do not have the time to do market research, revise the code on GitHub, learn about game theory and market adoption.. And a long list behind that.

And more importantly, they may not even want to vote on these aspects or the changes that need implementing.

Now I know, the main reason why we must have the political aspect involved is to have a solid democracy…. But if the 96% doesn’t want to participate, then wouldn’t that defeat the whole purpose entirely?

Granted, each blockchain has a different community and a different niche, so each situation is different. Each of them try to enact their own model of governance.

In fact, this is the whole purpose of this post, is to entertain the idea of a case-by-case option as opposed to a one-size-fits-all philosophy.

Can you have a decentralized platform where the direction of the company mostly stands on the shoulders of its architects and the people who spend the most time building it and maintaining it?

Just like when the first wave of platforms were being built on the internet, they didn’t necessarily have the users vote on each aspect of the website they needed to tweak.

Each platform just implemented its own vision. It started from there and the internet ended up being the biggest democratization tool ever invented (until the blockchain).

Which leaves us with an interesting question: To which degree do we need to have politics involved in decentralization?

Image Sources: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4