Close, What we're currently forced to accept, by virtue of little other option, is trusting blindly in people that have already demonstrated a lack of skill. Undisputable fact. I really don't care about causing offence. If me pointing out incompetence offends you, cease being incompetent - especially when asking others to pay the price of your failure. Although it's completely out of control what they do, now, there is a loosely specified date by which we should form some "government" - and if this appears via the "direct democracy" model then change is assured. It's assured either way, because I don't predict most to stick around once this starts going tits up, and any other model is assured to head in that direction. But we'll be best to worry about crossing that bridge when we get there. As a community we should be developing this framework - concepts, groups, standards and borders etc. so that when the time comes it can drop into place with the minimum of fuss. Between now and then it's pure trust and hope however - two incredibly poor foundations to be building from. If it doesn't get a more stable foundation, then quite simply cease attempting to build. As for progressing faster, yes it should be really, but there's a good excuse behind it's lack - after placing several thousand "special" people into a room there's not a lot to honestly expect to come out of that room beyond dribbles and hugs and the occasional loud whooping when they see something shiny.

True EyeR. But what we currently accept is trusting blindly in the skills of people who are not elected to do what they do. It is out of control what they do. (I don't want to offend anyone here, it is just a fact) We could solve a lot of current issues when we would have any collective power to do so. The current progress of asgardia civic for example could be entirely re-managed to a network of people who work with a proposal based system that massively involves the resources of our community. Same counts for the development stuff and prototyping of concepts, groups, standards and borders. I don't downgrade the current system, but things could progress a lot faster with the right concept.

"Direct democracy" can work equally well when scaled into larger numbers - it really doesn't behave any differently when scaled to tens or hundreds of thousands of participants - can get a little hectic when some CBA to read previous input and continually raise points long since put to rest - and this would become the senate of which you speak. Especially considering the variables involved, we have no requirement for incredibly time sensitive decisions at this point, on the whole. There is time to afford discussion on a particular topic for at least a month wherin the discussions should find both the merits and pitfalls of persuing various actions and hopfully either agree on a solution or provide a range of solutions to select from collectively. Blockchain voting is a wonderful way to waste a lot of processing power achieving very little, least of all in the name of security. The largest and most obvious flaw - beyond taking 50,000,000 CPU cycles to achieve what could be done in four - would be the ease at which the reverse engineering of the blockchain data itself will yield who has voted for what, and when they did so. I'm currently ignoring how that could be used to build an "activity map" of the voting process, and othersuch, instead focusing purely on how trivial it would be to find out what you'd voted for, and then use that information to define if you have conformed to my wishes and deserve payment for. That's the consequences of "checking". Short of contacting every individual and asking them to confirm this is what they input I don't see how simply having a ledger makes it possible to assure legitimacy. It certainly doesn't prevent "rigged voting" as blockchains tend to be easily posioned, you just need a greater number of nodes, commonly. This is not difficult or restrictive to obtain, least of all to the well funded. You account for every vote being legit by rolling out a trustable system. Ideally this would be open sourced and fingerprints of hardware/softwares provided to assure what's running is actually what's in the code published - and no extra - it can be independantly verified. And nothing operates in Asgardia democratically *yet*. We need to build the framework in which that operates. Or quite simply put, it'll never happen.