JUNO - CONSTITUTION
New & existing articles may only be approved or amended by a super majority on-chain governance ruling, ie. 2/3 approval.
Social consensus via on-chain governance is the unbendable standard for decision-making related to the JUNO distributed Ledger.
Addresses (accounts) on the Juno distributed ledger are sacrosanct. Governance may not alter account balances.
Amendment Requests
1.0 - rewrite
3.0 - rewrite
3.1
3.2 - draft
Most importantly, in order to maintain strong decentralization, in a situation where the initial dev team is no longer the primary development team for the network, the chain can choose to reclaim any unreleased tokens from the development team and redirect them to the community pool or towards a new set of development teams via a governance proposal.
Note
My concern with requiring a super majority is in relation to validator power.
As it stands, the community can override their own validators vote, and although Juno is one of the best chains for voting turnout, quite a lot just delegate and not vote.
My issue with validator votes comes down to the potential to be bribed via ‘official delegations’. We in the root team have tried to remove it as much as we can by implementing a separate delegation dao. But this still has the potential to cause conflicts of interest.
Basically my worry is in the future, our validator landscape might change, and I just want to think about how this constitution might lead to undesirable outcomes. With a simple majority, the normal delegator might have a better chance.
A consitution can still work with a simple majority imo.
[deleted]