If we thought of these blockchains as governments or as states, would you expect most people to choose to be the citizen of the state that doesn't give people a vote, which is designed to centralize to the point of absolute monarchy? Which can't change it's constitution or amend it?
Why would we design something which isn't at least as good at the nation states we have? Shouldn't we be trying to design something far better than what we already have?
Unfortunately Bitcoin seems to be taking us backwards, almost to point where developers are the high priests, and combined with a bunch of other unelected officials who can try to manipulate through censorship, bans, etc.
If we want a government or a DAC that works well, we need to focus on two things:
- It has to have a well defined decision making process. Right now Bitcoin is suffering because it doesn't have this. Bitcoiners can't decide how to direct the development so they have to waste their time and resources to fight against each other. And important questions like "how to fund the development" are still completely without an answer. Developers are mostly funded by charity and that's not a good way in the long run.
- People who take part in the decision making process have to have good incentives. Democratic states have bad problems because politicians have incentives to promise a lot of stuff for everobody. That can't go forever and countries like Greece are little by little understanding this. Money just runs out eventually.
As far as I can see, Bitshares is the best DAC at this moment (I'm counting on that 2.0 comes out as promised). It has a clear way of decision making and developing. It has good incentives for people to actually do the development, build infrastructure and use the platform. Time will tell if the incentives are really great, but if they aren't, with the decision making process we can probably change them for better (unless there are some really bad incentives that prevent this).