governance_crypto_notes

Governance in the crypto space shall not differ from a singular political, economic and social order. This order could be based on two contrary philosophical principles whose articulation determined and still determine all the architecture of the different modes of governance that have succeeded one another in the course of human history: authority and freedom. The equilibrium can be reached if a fair balance is built between these two fundamentals based on trust. Authority is, first of all, a "family, patriarchal, magisterial, monarchical, theocratic principle, tending to hierarchy, centralization, absorption", according to the French Philosopher Proudhon This principle is "given by nature"; it is, therefore "essentially fatal or divine, as one would like".
In another hand, Freedom is its exact opposite, it is "personal, individual, critical". It is a "dividing agent", which is "given to us by the spirit". We speak here about a cultural nature. It frees us from the spontaneous state of nature and dominates the fatality to which we seem to be doomed.
Governance in the cryptospace aims to enable a reintermediation of Trust by shifting it to another kind of tool based on identity, voting, and reputation which are the primary entry-level agents that manage to lock in a top-notch way the p2p transaction in place. 

Governance and Trust management shall be: 
Participative - users freely and independently participate in loose tasks
Collaborative - users collaborate and add value facing actively common goals and/or objectives
Cooperative - user expect some shared revenues to be returned
Distributed - starts the breeding of functions by multiplying them across a wider net
Decentralized - further scalability is reached by instilling more powers to the edges
Autonomous - autonomous agent, smart programs and increased levels of AI (together with AI algorithms) provide self-sustainability in terms of governance and trust management