Probably the most worrying thing is self-conflicting ACD decision makings. Remember ProgPoW? It was rejected nearly purely because many devs think it's controversial. While in EIP-1559 Fee Market, it's included despite its controversy in the miner community. (3/8)
This was not the only example. Similar thing happened in EIP-1344, which was included despite some technical objections in its design. On the other hand, many of us thought EIP-2315 was doing well addressing its technical issues, until the last minute when it was rejected. (4/8)
The lack of self-consistency primarily hurts community trust. A pressing question is -- how do you expect the #Ethereum mining community to trust ACD's decisions on EIP-1559 Fee Market, when ACD often contradicts itself? (5/8)
Don't get me wrong. I like EIP-1559 Fee Market. Besides, nearly all #Substrate-based chains (Polkadot, Kusama, Kulupu, etc) already implement fee market in production. However, for Ethereum, a good specification does not do much itself without the community agreeing on it. (6/8)
Having been in #Ethereum-style hard fork governance for a long time, and later having been in Polkadot-style on-chain governance, I must say that at this moment, I think VitalikButerin's arguments on opposition to on-chain governance is flawed. (7/8) https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1297812850140839937
What I think Vitalik missed, is that people need to agree on the process for agreement. Hard fork governance has enough coordination to quantify whether people agree on things, but a decentralized community requires people to also agree on the means to agree on things. (8/8)
It's really hard to point at a clean example on an #Ethereum ACD decision where I can say -- the governance process is working really well. It's really easy to find many many examples on ACD decisions where people can easily say -- the governance process is broken. (2/8)