Vitalik Buterin: The political axis of the bulldozer and the veto

Bulldozer explained: Push down or veto others everywhere.

Generally, attempts to decompose political preferences into several dimensions focus on two main dimensions: “authoritarianism vs. liberalism” and “left-wing vs. right-wing”. You may have seen a political compass like this:

Vitalik Buterin: The political axis of the bulldozer and the veto

There are many changes in this area, and there is even a subreddit dedicated to memes (MEME) based on these graphs. I even rotated this concept myself. Using this “metacosmic political compass”, each point on the compass has a smaller compass, which describes what the axis of the compass is seen by the person at that point on the compass.

Of course, “Authoritarianism vs. Liberalism” and “Left vs. Right” are both incredibly rough and undifferentiated oversimplifications. But we mentally handicapped humans do not have the ability to run anything close to accurately simulating humans in our minds, so sometimes we need to understand that the world requires very indiscriminate oversimplifications. But what if there are other incredible, undifferentiated overall oversimplifications worth exploring?

Disagreement between entering the bulldozer and the veto

Let us consider the political axis defined by these two opposing poles:

  • Bulldozer: A single actor can do important and meaningful but potentially risky and destructive things without requiring permission.
  • Veto: Doing anything that can be destructive and controversial requires the approval of a large number of different and diverse participants, and anyone can stop it.

Please note that this is different from authoritarian and liberal or left and right. You can have authoritarianism, bulldozer leaving or any other combination. Here are some examples:

Vitalik Buterin: The political axis of the bulldozer and the veto

The main difference between an authoritarian bulldozer and an authoritarian veto is: the government is more likely to fail by doing bad things or preventing good things from happening? Similar liberal bulldozers and veto powers: are private actors more likely to fail because they do bad things, or are they blocking good things that are needed?

Sometimes, I hear people complaining, for example. The United States (but also other countries) is falling behind because too many people use freedom as an excuse to prevent necessary reforms from happening. But is the question really freedom? For example, the restrictive housing policy that prevents GDP growth by 36% is not an example of the problem that people do not have enough freedom to build buildings on their own land? On the other hand, shifting the argument to too much veto power makes the argument seem less confusing: the individual’s excessive blocking of the government and the government’s excessive blocking of the individual are not opposites, but two aspects of the same coin.

In fact, there have been many recent political articles that point to the veto system as the source of many huge problems:

On the other hand, people are often confused when politicians who usually do not respect human rights suddenly show their love for Bitcoin. Are they liberals or authoritarians? In this framework, the answer is simple: they are bulldozers, with all the benefits and risks that this aspect brings.

What is the use of the veto system?

Although the changes that cryptocurrency proponents try to bring to the world are often bulldozers, the internal cryptocurrency governance is usually very vetoed. It is well known that Bitcoin governance is difficult to change, and some core “constitutional norms” (such as the limit of 21 million coins) are considered inviolable, so much so that many Bitcoin users believe that chains that violate this rule are by definition Rather than Bitcoin, no matter how much support it has.

Ethereum protocol research is sometimes a bulldozer in operation, but the Ethereum EIP process that controls the transfer of research proposals into actual entry into the final stage of the blockchain includes a fair share of veto power, although it is still lower than Bitcoin. The governance of irregular state changes and hard forks that interfere with the operation of specific applications on the chain is even more stringent: after the DAO forks, no one proposed to intentionally “fix” certain applications by changing its code or moving its balance. Up.

The reason for the veto in these situations is clear: it gives people a sense of security, and the platform they build or invest in will not one day suddenly change the rules for them and destroy all the time or money they have invested in them over the years. Cryptocurrency supporters often cite Citadel’s intervention in Gamestop transactions as an example of the opaque, centralized (and bulldozer) manipulation they are opposing. Web2 developers often complain that centralized platforms suddenly change their APIs in order to destroy the startups built around their platforms. And of course…

Vitalik Buterin: The political axis of the bulldozer and the veto

Vitalik Buterin, victim of bulldozer

Well, the story of removing siphon life is the direct inspiration of Ethereum is exaggerated, but the infamous patch ruined my beloved Warlock, and my reaction to it was very real!

Likewise, the reason for the veto power in politics is clear: it is a response to the often destructive excesses of bulldozers in the early 20th century, which is relatively small and unimaginable.

So what is synthesis?

The main purpose of this point is to outline an axis, not to argue about a specific location. If the axis of the veto system and the bulldozer is similar to the axis of liberals and despotism, then it will inevitably have internal subtleties and contradictions: just like a free society will see people voluntarily join an internal despotism company (yes , Even if many people are not financially desperate at all to make such a choice), many sports will be vetoed internally, but they are bulldozers in relation to the outside world.

But here are some things people might believe about bulldozers and vetoes:

  • The physical world has too many veto powers, but the digital world has too many bulldozers and no real effective bulldozer shelters (hence: why do we need a blockchain?).
  • The process of creating lasting change requires overthrowing the status quo, but protecting this change requires veto power. These processes should happen at some optimal rate; too much, there will be confusion; not enough, there will be stagnation.
  • Some key institutions should be protected by strong veto powers. These institutions exist both to make bulldozers need to make positive changes, and to provide people with things they can rely on, and these things will not be destroyed by bulldozers.
  • In particular, the bottom layer of the blockchain should be rejected by one vote, but the application layer governance should leave more room for bulldozers.
  • Better economic mechanisms (secondary voting? Harberger tax?) can allow us to obtain the veto and the many benefits of bulldozers without having to pay a lot of price.

When considering non-governmental organizations, veto power and bulldozers are a particularly useful form of axis human organization, whether it is a for-profit company, a non-profit organization, a blockchain, or something completely different. The relatively easy ability to withdraw from these systems (compared to the government) confuses the discussion about liberalism and authoritarianism. So far, blockchain and even centralized technology platforms have not really found many ways to distinguish between the left and right axes. Myself (although I would like to see more attempts at left-leaning encryption projects!). On the other hand, the veto and the bulldozer axis continue to map well to the NGO structure-possibly making it very relevant to discussing these new types of NGO structures that are becoming more and more important.

The information provided in this article is for general guidance and information purposes only. The content of this article should not be regarded as investment, business, legal or tax advice under any circumstances. We do not take any responsibility for personal decisions made based on this article, and we strongly recommend that you conduct your own research before taking any action. Although every effort has been made to ensure that all information provided here is accurate and up-to-date, omissions or errors may occur.

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2021-12-19 22:47
Next 2021-12-19 22:54

Related articles