neversolの‌価格NEVER

RT @juro99btc: NEVER STOP TWEETING ABOUT $DOG do you understand?

"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." ~ Edward Bernays

RT @MugabeV2: I think the take that we'll never see 2021 happen again because it hasn't happened yetwm when M2 supply is now functionally d…

My thought on recent Sui gov proposal by @CetusProtocol First of all @FourpillarsFP is not a validator, but we have approached the recent @SuiNetwork governance proposal with perhaps more caution and consideration than anyone else. Quickly voting on such a proposal is not necessarily a virtue. Transferring assets frozen from a hacker's address is an act that requires profound thought, especially for validators. While we are not validators ourselves, as long-time researchers of the Sui ecosystem, we have compiled our reflections below: 1. We must deeply reconsider the boundaries of acceptable decentralization. Even in societies that highly value personal freedom, the Non-Aggression Axiom exists. This axiom clearly defines the only condition under which freedom can justifiably be restricted—when one’s liberty infringes on another’s property. In other words, even a supreme value like liberty has limits. Why did libertarian political theorists adopt such axioms? Because while a society where no one harms another’s property wouldn’t need restrictions, the reality of human society demands clear principles and boundaries. Political philosophy isn’t just theoretical—it also explores how ideals are implemented through systems and institutions. The same applies to decentralization. In its most extreme form, decentralization allows a network to resist censorship under any circumstance. But from another angle, this also means the network cannot protect user assets even when hacks occur. People often describe Ethereum as a network "suitable for institutions." But I question that. In a network where decentralization is protected to the extreme and no intervention is ever allowed, it may actually be harder for institutions to operate. Instead, wouldn’t a network that allows intervention based on clear rules and procedures be more trustworthy? 2. Networks like Sui should move beyond blind decentralization and establish their own principles. If we agree that absolute decentralization is not always the answer, then the next step is to define when and how the chain itself can intervene. Questions like “Under what conditions can the chain step in?” and “What principles and due processes must be followed?” need to be openly discussed. If necessary, a “constitutional framework” at the protocol level should be created. 3. Personally, I find Sui’s current proposal somewhat disappointing. Why is the network assuming responsibility for something that was Cetus’s fault? This makes me feel that Sui has adopted a paternalistic form of governance. If Cetus was at fault, then Cetus should be accountable. More discussion among the community and ecosystem participants should have preceded any action. What kind of governance does Sui want to build? How will it respond to similar situations in the future? Who is ultimately responsible in this case—and are they fulfilling that responsibility? 4. Sui needs more flexible governance framework. One of the core governance issues exposed by this incident is the lack of individual voting rights. Sui follows a delegated proof-of-stake (dPoS) system where token holders delegate their voting power to validators, who vote on their behalf—similar to modern representative democracies. But the reason representative democracy made sense in the real world is because it was physically impossible for every citizen to participate in every legislative process. Here, Sui could learn from @cosmos, which allows individual token holders to cast their votes directly through its governance module. 5. What lens should we use to view blockchain? @0xkydo from EigenLayer made an interesting comment about the Sui hack response. He suggested that if you were offended by the asset freeze, you likely view blockchain as a political tool—an instrument for resisting centralized power. But if you were glad that the hack was stopped, you likely see blockchain as a technical tool. Sui never explicitly declared that it is not a political instrument, but given its stance on not pursuing extreme decentralization, we can reasonably infer that it aims to be a widely usable platform, not a tool of political resistance. From that perspective, its decision to freeze assets does not contradict its identity. That said, as I’ve emphasized throughout, blockchains are consensus-driven networks. Every decision must be backed by legitimacy, and legitimacy is born from clearly defined principles. I sincerely hope this incident encourages Sui and its ecosystem to establish those principles—and in doing so, realize true rule by law within a decentralized framework.

never stopped collecting gm