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
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)
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)
I can't help but echo the comments from greg_colvin, peter_szilagyi and others, regarding the "nastiness" of #Ethereum ACD decision making on EIP-2315. (1/8)
Basic documentation for Frontier is up. The Ethereum compatibility layer for Substrate! https://paritytech.github.io/frontier/
There will always be a tendency towards centralization, as shown in the real world. Kulupu cannot succeed if it does not have resistance towards that tendency. A blockchain should keep being leaderless and decentralized.
We should also post more educational materials on what "decentralization" means. It's a bad sign if people still ask permissions when doing anything, if there is no autonomy other than from developers in the community, and if people feel surprised by the openness of marketing.