The Perils of Unchecked Governance in STX: A Call for Immutable Monetary Policy

SIP Weekly SIP call
#1

In the realm of blockchain technology, we must remain vigilant against the encroachment of collectivist ideologies that threaten the sanctity of individual rights and the predictability of economic systems. The recent discussions within the STX community regarding potential alterations to the monetary policy—such as increasing or decreasing block rewards, postponing halvenings, or modifying emission schedules—underscore a dangerous flirtation with democratic governance over foundational economic principles.

Consider the proposal to delay the upcoming halving scheduled for January 2025. Such a move, if subjected to majority vote, opens the door to arbitrary changes in the emission schedule, thereby undermining the very predictability that engenders trust in the system. The allure of democracy in this context is a siren’s call, tempting us toward decisions that may serve short-term interests but ultimately erode the long-term stability of the network.

Bitcoin has demonstrated the power of immutable monetary policy. It is not governed by shifting majorities but by an unchangeable economic framework that ensures predictability. This is why Bitcoin is trusted: because its rules are not up for debate. The moment governance is allowed to interfere with STX’s core economic rules, the network ceases to be a reliable store of value and instead becomes a bureaucratic playground, no different from the fiat systems we sought to escape.

A blockchain must not be a democracy; it must be a constitutional republic. In real life, constitutions exist to limit government power and protect the individual’s life, liberty, and property from the whims of the collective. In blockchain, no one’s life is at stake, but property rights are. Just as a government must not have the power to arbitrarily seize or devalue an individual’s wealth, a blockchain’s governance system must not have the power to manipulate monetary policy for the benefit of the majority at the expense of the individual.

As Leonard Peikoff wrote, “The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, not a democracy, restricted to the protection of individual rights. The majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government.” In the context of blockchain, this translates to a system where the core economic rules are inviolable, shielded from the caprices of majority decision-making.

To preserve the integrity of STX, we must establish a constitutional framework that explicitly prohibits governance from altering monetary policy. This constitution would serve as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the foundational economic parameters remain sacrosanct and beyond the reach of collective interference.

In conclusion, let us heed the lessons of history and the principles of individualism that underpin the very philosophy of decentralized systems. By enshrining an immutable monetary policy within a constitutional framework, we safeguard the predictability and trust that are essential to the enduring success of STX. Let us commit to building a Blockchain Republic, where governance exists to protect, not to plunder, the rights of the individual.

4 Likes
[DRAFT] Fueling Stacks Builders & Growth, Meet SIP-031
#2

The Illusion of High Quorum: Why Even 90% Approval is Not Enough to Protect Property Rights

Some may argue that STX’s governance is safeguarded because monetary policy changes require a supermajority—70%, 80%, or even 90% approval. But this argument is a mirage, a dangerous illusion that ignores the fundamental principle of property rights. The percentage required for a vote does not change the fact that a majority, no matter how large, should have no power over the monetary rules that impact individual ownership.

Imagine a system where 90% of the population votes to seize the property of the remaining 10%. Would this be justice? Would this be a legitimate system simply because the threshold was high? No. The very concept of individual rights is that they cannot be voted away, not by 51%, not by 99%.

The same principle applies to monetary policy. When governance has the ability to increase block rewards, delay halvenings, or alter emissions through voting, it creates an inherent risk of inflationary theft—where those who control the majority decide to dilute the property of the minority. Whether this happens by a 51% vote or a 90% vote does not matter; what matters is that the very mechanism for abuse exists.

Bitcoin does not require a 90% vote to prevent monetary manipulation. It simply makes monetary policy unchangeable. That is the only true safeguard. By contrast, if STX allows governance to determine its emission schedule, block rewards, or halvenings, then STX is not sound money—it is simply another fiat system in disguise, where those with the most influence dictate the rules.

A constitutional blockchain must recognize that monetary policy is sacred and off-limits to majority rule. Whether 70% or 90% vote in favor of change is irrelevant. The only number that matters is 100% voluntary agreement—which is, by definition, impossible to achieve in a large system. This is why a constitution is necessary: to prohibit any attempt to alter monetary policy through collective decision-making, ensuring that property rights remain untouchable.

Do not be fooled by the argument that a high quorum provides security. The only true security is immutable monetary rules. Anything less is an invitation to abuse, whether by a slim majority or an overwhelming one.

3 Likes
#3

There is a constitution, its SIP-000. You are more than welcome to open a PR to amend the constitution. You can suggest whatever you want, cultivate community support, hold a vote, and amend SIP-000.

2 Likes
#4

I’m not sure how to do that, @WillCorcoran. I can’t find a way to join the discussion on that website. I’m here to share my ideas and discuss them with you all in this forum.

Governance is a dangerous thing, and I’m here to convince you of the need to avoid collectivism in the blockchain space. The tyranny of the majority is a real and pressing issue in governance. Others have attempted to address this problem before—please check this link. This is not just my concern, this vulnerability to individuality and sovereignty has already been discussed, but no solution can truly succeed without a constitution.

Stacks currently operates under Coin-Weighted Democracy (Plutocracy in Disguise) and On-Chain Governance (Direct Democracy with No Protections):

  • Coin-Weighted Democracy means those with the most STX tokens hold the most power, creating a system where governance is controlled by wealthy entities rather than immutable principles.
  • On-Chain Governance allows token holders to vote directly on changes, including monetary policy, with no constitutional restrictions, meaning the majority can impose its will on the minority without protections.

This is a fundamental flaw. Too often, people launch blockchain projects and assume “governance” (in reality is democracy, don’t know why we still call it governance?) is a good idea, without considering where governance inevitably leads. This happens because people lack philosophical grounding and fail to learn from historical mistakes. I’m here to debate and persuade you to avoid repeating those same errors.

1 Like
#5

No, it doesn’t. Please read SIP-000.

2 Likes
#6

Absolutely agree!

1 Like
#7

franco_79001 - I like your sentiment and believe the direction of the ideology behind your ideas. Freedom tech, like Bitcoin, is the objective. However, in reading SIP0001, I think there is a lot of protection there. Even in the USA, private property is not absolute - taking your property to build a road, for example. Bitcoin has the ability to change it’s consensus as well, but the system design is so elegant that is very hard to achieve. However, even Michael Saylor will have his nodes upgrade to Quantum resistance when that becomes necessary for security. In theory, it’s possible to change bitcoin’s 21M hard cap, but who would use the new fork? BCH, anyone.
What I want to see emphasized is how Stacks is in the process of making security and decentralization better and better to the point that it becomes almost like an LN level of censorship resistance. IMO, that will be the killer feature for a smart contract bitcoin L2. If other L2’s can’t match that and especially, other L1’s, they will fade into the dustbin of history.

1 Like
#8

Sorry, meant SIP-000.

#9

You can always change the rules in blockchain republics with a fork. And the majority vote will define which chain benefits most of its initial value.

@franco_79001 To make suggestions to SIP-000, create a github account and click on the pen icon in the top right area:
image

1 Like
#10

image

And so it begins, a subsidy, what I have been warning about, letting collectivism into the blockchain, attacking property rights through dilutive inflation, tu fund whatever excuse. This is how you scare away bitcoin OGs, imagine if there was a monetary policy like that in bitcoin, a subsidy to fund whatever, everybody would sell bitcoin.

Where is this so called “constitution SIP-000” that would protect the individual STX holder from people wanting to dilute him?

1 Like
#11

Blockchains are already full of collectivism. You need a collective that supports changes to SIP-000? SIP-031 is not a change to SIP-000.

attacking property rights through dilutive inflation

Others might say that STX holders’ rights are attacked if the STX value is not supported efficiently.

2 Likes
#12

Yeah, yeah, I just hear the same things. It’s the same. “Others might say that we need taxes to create more value”. Same thing in the real world as in the blockchain world: for the common good, we need to tax ourselves. THE supply should be limited, not inflationary, precisely to avoid this. Now we are going to have inflation, which is a tax, and it will never be enough funding for the “common good.” This funding will never stop, in perpetuity; once you start it never ends.

Why don’t you try creating a voluntary funding treasury instead? Why always has to be forced. If people don’t do it voluntarily is better to stay that way for a reason.

This is just giving me more confidence that the light network which doesn’t require a token to be functional except BTC is preferable to Stacks, this is so sad. Like seriously perhaps Matthew Kratter was right all along about LN > STACKS.

#13

More users raising concerns about the printer and more devs/founders dismissing those valid concerns by telling users if they want to enact change they need to learn how to code, engineer, build a blockchain, or use GitHub.

#14

Yeah, that’s what collectivists do; eventually they will tell you:

“If you don’t want to be taxed, go live elsewhere.”

Here, in blockchain terms, it will be

“If you don’t want to be taxed, then sell your STX and move on to other projects.”

Guess what people will do. They will just move to where they are not taxed: Bitcoin. Period.

People don’t get the dangers of having a governance system; it always is used to step on the individual by the tyranny of the majority. This will be the last time I will invest in any project that has “governance.” Governance is just the gateway for collectivists to do what they do best: LOOT.

Unchecked governance without a constitution that prohibits changing monetary policy is just a open invitation for this nonsense.

#15

The community has the power to check the governance. Otherwise, we wouldn’t talk here.

I hate the tyranny of the majority as well, but tyranny of the individual is worse.

People might accept the tax and take the risk of losing or winning.

1 Like
#16

WHAT? That is a contradiction and a philosophical moral abomination, all that phrase does is to justify collectivism, the very thing bitcoin was created to fight to. Hold your horses, the individual is not subjugating the collective, and it can’t; it is always the other way around. How is the individual stepping on the whole project? By wanting to keep the value of their STX holdings without being diluted in the name of “growth”? Give me a break.

#17

How is the individual stepping on the whole project?

I understand your argument about the rights of the individual so that the whole project can’t move forward (in whatever direction) if 1 individual is against it. BTW, I am getting out of my comfort zone. Taking a break.

wanting to keep the value of their STX holdings

I think that is the goal of all. Whether it is the collective or all individuals. We can discuss the way forwards.

1 Like
#18

Andddd I got banned from telegram for speaking about this in-conformity, good luck with your project. Unstacking my STX.