Giuseppe Natale

> We can require that validators self-select and self-declare their jurisdiction policy choice by blockchain-based identifier, and these choices should determine what regulations the chain must abide by but only...

I think finding true alignment is not just a matter of looking at voters of proposal 848. We had other governance proposals that could be used to refine the filtering,...

> For me the best idea is to consider the participation ratio, i.e. if the chain is protected with 2/3 of the tokens in staking, we can airdrop 2/3 +5%...

> There are people who couldn't vote for #82 because there was no wallet at the time. But they voted on item #848. What to do with them? We would...

@tintin2828 as I've replied in the issue you've opened > due to how governance work it's a duty of stakers to override their validator's vote if it does not align,...

As per the roadmap, the initial launch of the chain was to be done via a simple fork of the gaia repo with minimal changes (mostly to x/gov and removal...

> Extending on that, and because direct voting suffers from voter apathy to an extent. I think a staker should be able to delegate to an account for voting on...

> Q: Could this hard limit of 1B be changed through governance? Not sure what would be the use case, I am curious where the 1B number comes from, is...

`C` is not supposed to be 1. For it to be 1 it would mean that somehow 1$ATOM1 gives you 1$PHOTON, and it actually doesn't matter. `C` is just a...

> Decentralist : high importance in voting > ATOM1 stakers : low importance in voting > phATOM1 : low importance in voting phATOM1 would not get voting rights except for...