Control and Education Parallels
Recently, I've been reflecting on the Stellar liquidity arguments and realizing that framing them as "arguments" is entirely misguided. These are not mere debates but pivotal design choices influenced by the complex interplay of interests in the network—a system not governed by any single individual.
This perspective has also shaped my interpretation of WhyDRS actions in two specific cases: (i) TAD3 inter-agent usage and (ii) GitHub organization and security. The first case is more extensively documented in my personal decisions folder and has been the subject of ongoing community discussions and outreach. I’ll avoid elaborating further here since it intersects profoundly with antitrust and regulatory policy implications, especially considering the insolvency of Cede.
The second case, however, caught me completely off guard during discussions about how contributors might associate with the WhyDRS GitHub organization as members (or not). The conversation naturally evolved as we tackled repository access roles. It went something like this:
from me:
Yeah, and it's just logistically easier for active members to not need new PRs for every change, which
then must get approved by existing contributors. Perhaps it could tie into certain token thresholds,
and you could ask for it in a DUNA-specific channel with an explanation of which permissions you need
and such. Something for a more open dialogue, as I don't think there is massive traffic from potential
collaborators on GitHub just yet.
As you surely know, there was massive drama when the BTC org affiliation for Gavin Andresen was revoked.
This discussion coincided with conversations about hosting updates for the Taking Stock podcast platform. Bibic kindly took the initiative to document the central hosting process for existing episodes and outlined a collaborative system for adding new content.
Their contributions were stellar. Yet, my initial (and admittedly inappropriate) reaction was, "Isn't this just on Netlify? Hur dur?" The reality was that Bibic only knew about GitHub Pages because that’s what Throw used when helping configure the legacy page early on. Explaining my perspective and slowing down was essential to making progress.
Since then, discussions about hosting have continued, starting from a DUNA meeting weeks ago and extending onto GitHub. My impatience for this process manifested in indiscriminate questioning of Bibic’s implementation instead of fostering a more productive, anticipatory dialogue about the goals for the updated site. Not everyone can listen to three-hour biweekly meetings, and I failed to make the meeting context accessible.
In a broader sense, this realization spurred me to push—yet again—for requiring organization-wide 2FA. While presented lightheartedly as "no rush," incessant nagging about specifics like this is plainly irresponsible and unproductive.
Chives had the genius idea of handling it via flexible channels, allowing contributors to choose their level of engagement on their own terms. How much better is that? Imposing monolithic requirements on everyone just because I think it’s a good idea is unnecessary. Instead, organic self-organization and decision-making—considering risks and circumstances—better enable members to foster creativity and further our mission.
My prior approach often veered too close to centralized control, as if I were a benevolent dictator decreeing policy unilaterally. This is far from efficient for a democratic organization. Might I foster more meaningful advice exchanges by expressing my opinions pro se moving forward?