The Applicability of Precedents

How materially different are these blockchain governance scenarios from existing precedents in non-blockchain systems?

Launching a blockchains is technical act, but economic/legal implications are novel — is partially right, but worth examining more carefully.

Where Blockchain Is Genuinely Novel

1. Permissionless participation with economic stakes

Traditional systems separate these: - Open-source software: permissionless contribution, but no direct economic stake in the codebase - Public companies: economic stake (shares), but permissioned participation (board elections, proxy votes) - Cooperatives: participation and stake, but membership is permissioned

Blockchains combine all three: anyone can acquire tokens, tokens confer governance rights, and the "product" is the governance system itself. This creates novel attack surfaces (governance attacks are also economic attacks) and novel incentive alignments (or misalignments).

2. Immutability as a design constraint

Traditional organizations can reverse decisions, void contracts, issue refunds. Blockchain transactions are final by design. This makes governance failures catastrophic in ways that don't map to prior systems.

The DAO hack is instructive: in a traditional company, a $60M theft would trigger insurance claims, lawsuits, and potentially clawbacks. On Ethereum, the only options were "accept the loss" or "rewrite history via fork." Neither has a clean precedent.

3. Code as self-executing commitment

Smart contracts execute automatically. This is different from traditional contracts, which require interpretation and enforcement by courts.

When a DAO votes to confiscate tokens (Juno) or distribute funds (Compound bug), the code executes regardless of whether the decision was "legitimate." Traditional systems have friction between decision and execution; blockchain removes it.

4. Pseudonymous collective action

Traditional governance assumes identifiable parties. Blockchain governance often involves pseudonymous actors with no legal identity. This breaks assumptions about accountability, liability, and remedy.

The Ooki DAO case is novel precisely because the CFTC had to invent a mechanism (forum posting) to serve legal notice to a pseudonymous collective.

Where Blockchain Is Less Novel Than Claimed

1. Forking is not unprecedented

Your "many flowers bloom" framing recognizes this. Forks are analogous to: - Corporate spinoffs and divestitures - Schisms in religious or political organizations - Open-source project forks (LibreOffice from OpenOffice, MariaDB from MySQL)

The Bitcoin block size war resembles the LibreOffice fork more than it resembles a constitutional crisis. The novelty is that forks carry economic value (tokens), not that organizational splits are new.

2. Plutocracy is ancient

Token-weighted voting is just shareholder voting. The "plutocracy problem" is the same problem corporate governance has always had. Blockchains didn't invent it; they just made it more visible and removed the regulatory guardrails (SEC oversight, fiduciary duties, disclosure requirements).

3. Insider capture follows familiar patterns

Foundations, core teams, and VCs controlling blockchain projects looks like: - Controlling shareholders in public companies - Executive committees in nonprofits - Benevolent dictators in open-source projects

The Arbitrum Foundation acting before a vote concluded is not novel — it's a standard principal-agent problem.

4. Legal ambiguity is jurisdictional, not conceptual

The question "is a governance token a security?" is not philosophically novel. It's a classification question that existing securities law can answer — regulators just haven't finished answering it.

Similarly, "who is liable for DAO decisions?" has precedents in partnership law, joint venture law, and unincorporated association law. The novelty is that blockchain actors hoped to escape these frameworks, not that the frameworks don't apply.

The Genuine Mixing You're Noticing

Your intuition about "mixing technical and economic and legal" is pointing at something real:

Traditional separation: - Technical layer: protocols, standards, software (governed by technical merit, rough consensus) - Economic layer: markets, firms, contracts (governed by contract law, securities law, competition) - Legal layer: rights, obligations, enforcement (governed by courts, regulators, legislatures)

Blockchain conflation: - The protocol is the economic system is the governance system - A technical change (hard fork) is also an economic redistribution is also a governance decision - There's no "neutral" technical layer underneath the political/economic layer

This conflation is genuinely novel. In traditional systems, you can change the database schema without redistributing property rights. On a blockchain, changing the protocol is redistributing property rights.

Questions for You

To sharpen this analysis, it would help to know:

1. Which precedent domain are you most interested in?

• Contract law (are smart contracts "contracts"?)
• Corporate governance (are DAOs "organizations"?)
• Securities law (are tokens "securities"?)
• Property law (what property rights exist on-chain?)
• Tort law (who is liable for protocol harms?)

Each has different answers about novelty.

2. Are you asking descriptively or normatively?

• Descriptive: "How will courts and regulators treat these cases?"
• Normative: "How should we think about governance legitimacy in these systems?"

Courts will likely shoehorn blockchain into existing categories (as the Ooki DAO case shows). Whether those categories fit is a different question.

3. What's the practical concern?

If you're advising clients on blockchain governance: - "Is this legal?" has existing (if uncertain) answers - "Is this legitimate?" requires a different framework - "Will this work?" is an empirical question about incentives and participation

4. Where does your "many flowers bloom" framing fit?

Your earlier skepticism about "deliberation at scale" seems relevant here. Are you looking for: - A way to avoid the governance problem entirely (minimal coordination, local autonomy)? - A way to make blockchain governance more legitimate despite its novelty? - An argument that blockchain governance is not novel enough to require new frameworks?

---

Unresolved Questions

These questions recur across projects and have no settled answers:

1. Can on-chain governance be legitimate without identity?
2. How do you balance stability with adaptability?
3. Who are the "stakeholders" of a public blockchain?
4. Is immutability a governance principle or a technical constraint?
5. Can governance be credibly neutral?
6. How do you govern the governors?
7. What role should off-chain institutions (foundations, companies) play?
8. Is "rough consensus and running code" still viable at scale?

---

Further Reading

• Vlad Zamfir, "Blockchain Governance 101"
• Vitalik Buterin, "Notes on Blockchain Governance" and "Moving Beyond Coin Voting Governance"
• Primavera De Filippi & Aaron Wright, Blockchain and the Law
• Nathan Schneider, "Governable Spaces"
• Ellie Rennie, "The Governance of Blockchain Dispute Resolution"
• Nic Carter, "A Cross-Sectional Overview of Cryptoasset Governance"

---

Perspectives

We're skeptical of governance mechanisms that assume:

• Participation scales linearly with tooling
• Token holders are the relevant constituency
• On-chain voting produces legitimate outcomes
• Decentralization is binary rather than contextual

We're interested in:

• Subsidiarity: governance at the smallest effective scale
• Federation: groups coordinating without merging
• Legibility: making local decisions visible to other groups
• Minimal viable coordination: what's the least governance that works?