very good question tricky. my answer is that they are too numerous to count in a purely decentralized model.
a decentralized governance group has little recourse should this happen - it’s simply too slow
we all know of the 51% attack concept - here the bar is lower and there is nothing preventing someone from pulling off a 4% attack anonymously
however, there are several critical steps in governance that could mitigate the concern. each relies on some form of centralization.
Delegates have the ability to move a proposal to a formal vote. The community can recommend proposals, but it’s no longer an autonomous function. Just make the trigger multi-sig. Here’s the trade-off.
-No single person can shove a deleterious proposal through on volume of UNI alone
-No longer a decentralized function either.- Prone to internal politics, and can easily be utilized to stall efforts to progress the platform
Do none of the above, but let’s continue with the idea of an ‘approved delegate’. Here is the post-hoc solution. If an attack is imminent, then give them a multi-sig ability to ‘cancel’ a vote.
-No single person can pull off an attack
-not decentralized when you give a small group ‘veto’ power
-may also expose a critical weakness of multi-sig, because it assumes all delegates are paying attention and ‘able’ to vote
Extend the power of a governor. This ‘governor’ address (presumably uniswap employee) already has the override power to ‘cancel’ a vote. A classic fail-safe mechanism that is built into the code, unless i’m reading it incorrectly. There should be an ‘appeal’ process that allows us to ask the Governor to ‘cancel’ a vote.
-Nothing in the code needs changing
-No single bad agent can get away with an attack
-can be misused in a trustless system
this is a matter for a different post altogether, but we are at the stage where the foundational assumptions behind ‘decentralized social groups’ should be challenged.
- there is no historical precedence for this social entity working effectively.
- social anthropology says ‘no’ - do not try to equate this to hunter/gatherers - different scale - different problem
- behavioural economics says ‘no’ - human social progress is not a formative, rational, or ethical system - it is darwinian - it doesn’t give a gnats’ ass about which form of social organization we take. besides, modern capitalism is on the verge of collapse. there are many reasons for this, but my favourite is the critical assumption that Adam Smith got wrong in ‘wealth of nations’. he assumed, incorrectly, that given an economic choice, every human being would make a choice that improved the state of the social group. kahneman eloquently dismantled that argument on his way towards getting a nobel prize.
so, maybe a ‘hybrid’ model that mixes decentralized with centralized structures. the purists will cry foul because they prefer to see the universe as a convenient, non-quantum, arrangement of 1s and 0s. fair enough, the clockmakers among us may be right in the end, but i have my doubts. the point of innovation is to ‘temporarily suspend your disbelief’, because it’s the only way to trigger the novelty center of the brain. if we remain stuck in our beliefs, and hold them as sacrosanct pillars, we may as well let go of any claim to critical thought.
otherwise, a purist approach to decentralization will succeed, or not, on the assumption that humans can align on matters of mutual benefit. find precedence and i may be convinced. this is why satoshi was brilliant - he turned it into an economic challenge, and deferred the question of ‘trust’ to one of economic viability. here’s the irony. in order for a truly ‘decentralized’ system to work, we would have to abandon selfish needs and privilege the group over the self. in that system we no longer rely on PoW or PoS to achieve consensus on anything. i fear we are mixing decentralized wealth, identity, ownership of data (SELF) with decentralized governance (SOCIAL). the fact that it works so well with one, does not automagically confer the same outcome for the other.