Interview with Mitja Goroshevsky: Public Giver's reform proposal

Interview with Mitja Goroshevsky: Public Giver's reform proposal

A proposal to undertake Public Giver’s reform, involving the abolition of Subgovernances and partnerships, as well as the creation of the Decentralized Governance Fund. was made on the forum by TON Labs technical director Mitja Goroshevsky.

The GramKit team conducted an interview with Mitja Goroshevsky regarding the proposal. 

1) You propose to cancel all partnerships. Are you talking about all partnerships without exceptions?

Mitja Goroshevsky: I propose to cancel all partnerships from the moment the decision is made. No solution can be retroactive. But everything that can be canceled needs to be canceled.

2) Do you consider all partnerships ineffective? TON Labs supported and voted for many of them. What's changed?

Mitja Goroshevsky: I believe that this stage of network development is over.

3) Sergey Shashev expressed the following opinion regarding partnerships: "It is impossible to break the already accepted proposals. This spoils the reputation of the network. If partners report on KPI, we continue to fulfill the network's obligations." How can you comment on it?

Mitja Goroshevsky: I did not propose not to fulfill the obligations that we made. Again, the solution has no retroactive effect.

4) "DGF will be managed by its own Governance Token (DGFGT) which will be provided to any community member willing to prove ownership of 1 mln Evers". Why a million tokens? How can the implementation with a million tokens differ technically from the implementation with a thousand tokens?

Mitja Goroshevsky: There must be some misunderstanding. This is not about managing the community or all future token distributions. We are talking specifically about this structure of support for funds. Managing the fund of funds, taking into account today's tools, is more effective from a practical point of view. But if tomorrow SMV contracts actually work as they should, I personally will have no objection if the voting threshold is lowered to some reasonable value. I still believe that "the cook can't run the state," that is, the entry threshold should be high enough, perhaps not a million, 10,000 tokens, for example. However, I repeat, from a practical point of view, this is now impossible.

5) Why do you think that decision-making by those with more than a million tokens is a collusion-resistant governance mechanism?

Mitja Goroshevsky: I do not think so, but we see that resistance to collusion is ensured primarily by the presence of a motivated project leader who cares about his reputation for the future. These are people who may care about their reputation. At the moment, I do not see any better protection from collusion.

6) How to participate in the management of the fund to small teams that work to popularize and/or develop the network, but do not have a million tokens at their disposal?

Mitja Goroshevsky: What exactly do these people want to do? If their activity is entrepreneurship, then welcome to funds for money, and if funding, then welcome to funds with money. In principle, my proposal does not provide for any other management.

7) Does your design imply blocking these tokens? Will they not be able to be used in staking or projects such as KWPC?

Mitja Goroshevsky: No, it does not imply but before each vote you need to confirm that the tokens still belong to the voter. Perhaps I need to add a condition that tokens belong to the voter for some period.

8) At the last MeetUp you said that if you were creating Governance 2.0, it would be ready. What will you say about the scenario for the development of this mechanism by the team under your leadership with the allocation of a grant for implementation?

Mitja Goroshevsky: I just don't have time for this right now. Too many other tasks. I think we need more people who will take it seriously.

9) What is the fundamental difference between the scheme with the main fund and small funds than the scheme with main governance and subgovernances?

Mitja Goroshevsky: The difference is fundamental. Subgovernances were not created to encourage entrepreneurship. And if they were created, then such a mechanism is not suitable for this purpose.

10) Do you know of any of the Initial Members who are willing to vote for your proposal without any adjustments?

Mitja Goroshevsky: I think it doesn’t matter.

11) How has your belief in Everscale success changed since May 7, 2020?

Mitja Goroshevsky: It has not changed in any way, I never thought about the success within the price of a token or deadlines like 1 year.

We thank Mitya Goroshevsky for the interview. Go to the forum, read the proposal, leave comments. On our channel, you will find more useful information about Everscale.

Find out more about Everscale
Subscribe to our social networks and stay up to date with the latest news