Real protocols are securely automated.
Protocols do not improve the ability for humans to govern. Every shitcoin with a governance mechanism is doomed.
Protocols are meant to replace the inefficiencies of human decision-making — making governance of digital contracts, money, and the internet unnecessary. They reduce burden for governments and citizens by replacing the need for litigation with cryptographic proof.
Sorry bot, I don’t want your airdrop. 🤖🧿
Albeit, voting does seem incredibly insecure from an attack-vector perspective — but voting is all about securely issuing KYC, which is the antithesis of cryptography’s history. Systems like ION are better than government-issued KYC, but allowing anyone to be an issuer doesn’t really solve the Sybil problem in fraudulent voting systems.
Tracking the budget of a country with on-chain transparency is interesting, but verifying each “purchase” still happens outside of the digital realm — politicians often lie about what the money is used for, even if the funds are sent to the correct destination on-chain.
Therefore, I think it’s best never to conflate the innovations in cryptography with improving governance — as so many in Web3 have done before.
