For better or worse, the etherean people have spoken. After a week long vote on whether to restore 500,000 eth frozen due to a Parity multi-sig bug, they have decided against.
Nearly 4 million eth took part, with some 2.2 million of it, at 55%, voting No to the proposal. While 1.5 million eth, at 39.4%, were in favor, with 120,000 of it voting in the last 10 minutes for Yes. In addition, around the end of the vote, some 200,000 eth bothered to say they don’t care.
The proposal’s rejection by ethereans means ethereum itself is now very unlikely to restore those coins, with the matter probably pretty much closed for ethereum.
That’s after a fairly intense vote which had considerable swings day after day, but the results now appear to be fairly clear. The majority is against.
Freedom does truly reign here however. Anyone can chain-split fork to a minority coin, but Afri Schoedon of Parity says they “do not plan to split.”
If they do wish to split, they would have to come up with a better way to decide controversial matters, such as the one that was just decided.
The vote is imperfect, as anything human, but it is the most objective way to have a collective yes or no. Similar to an independent judiciary that can settle disputes, or indeed a jury.
We think it is a very legitimate process, although does need some improvements, but the affected parties did participate.
The Web3 Foundation, run by Gavin Wood of Parity, did vote with 306,000 eth. They should thus accept the results within ethereum itself.
That means what we may have here is the establishment of a fair governance process which can reach a decision in a timely manner and in a way that keeps ethereum moving forward as one.
Because understandably, many had different opinions, very legitimate opinions, opinions which they objectively expressed in the vote, thus reaching a collective decision.
Our own view of the matter was that they should be restored, but we’ll set aside our own views, and we’ll respect the results because we do not think we know better than the many.
Moreover we think there needs to be a conceptual, an intellectual, basis to reach a yes or no in a way that takes into account the views of all. And while this vote is imperfect, it is more perfect than other options.
Regarding the affected parties, they may consider other options. Such as perhaps a second ICO. A mistake was made, a decision was made, their investors will probably understand.
For these are the frontiers and sometime things do go wrong. Sometime when they go wrong they can be fixed. Sometime, as in the case, the decision is better to leave it as it stands.