The active discussions here feel like a hopeful evolution of the network’s governance process. Chainflow will be posting more about our vote for this specific SIMD soon. In the meantime, we thought it would be helpful to comment on the voting process itself, specifically regarding who can vote, i.e. validators only, how that decision came about and how delegators can still exercise some degree of power, albeit indirect, to help shape the vote.
The first governance vote, held this past October, determined which stakeholders have the power to vote.
Chainflow voted for the option that would have allowed validators, delegators and other stakeholders to vote.
Ultimately the “validators only” vote prevailed. And now the SIMD 96 vote may expose a limitation in a governance system where only validators can vote.
For example, as we see in some comments above, some stakeholders may perceive validators as voting to enrich themselves at the expense of the broader community and feel powerless without the ability to directly vote and influence the outcome. But remember, even if you’re a delegator without direct voting power, you can still exercise indirect decision-making power by delegating to a validator or validators whose voting decisions you align with.
The way the current voting system works is that a validator can’t change their vote once it’s cast. Over time, hopefully the process evolves to allow a validator to change their vote within a specified time period.
In the meantime, delegators should make their opinions known to the validators they delegate (or are considering delegating) to early in the process, before the voting period starts. Doing this will give validators time to consider the information expressed in these options into their vote decision-making framework.