And, a medium article by Kathleen Breitman, co-founder of Tezos, has responded to Vitalik’s comments by these words;

Recently, Vitalik Buterin speculated that, in the Tezos network, one could feasibly use bribery to create a coalition to vote for explicitly favorable laws towards one group at the expense of another. An evil corporate raider raising her stake in an oil rig company from 50% to 100% by bribing the board owns twice as many oil rigs as she did before. However, in the case of blockchain assets, it’s very clear to us that this sort of tampering would only yield, in the words of Voltaire*, rule over cemeteries from once-fertile plains. (This also goes without mentioning that the same “attack” is no less feasible within the highly centralized decision-making processes of existing public blockchains, particularly those with a propensity to hard-fork.) Once a community has reason to believe that the deck is set against them by a few select actors, the network loses its value in an irrevocable way. Additionally, if a group of actors did try and succeed in pushing through amendments that disproportionately hurt a group, social consensus would simply take over.

It is also important to note that, the very starting amendments of Tezos, weren’t decided by community consensus, but by founders of Tezos.

At Tezos, the delegation services provide convenience for staking as Vitalik mentioned, and people who have less than 10k Tezos tokens have to stake their tokens using these delegation services, while giving their voting power away.

Separating voting power from delegation wasn’t a very hard place to begin with, and this is why it’s also one of the most controversial topics inside Tezos governance currently.

If, by chance, or by other means, a couple delegation services get very big, they would have power to control the whole system.

Kathleen believes that there would be a riot within the community if certain amendments disproportionately hurt a group, and social consensus would simply take over.

I believe she is right.

I also believe she might have been wrong.

For instance, if Tezos would have started without the problems of foundations, delays, and started to make a bullrun, very few people would question the integrity of the amendments.

Cryptocommunity can’t think rationally when they are making huge gains. Most people in cryptocommunities only start questioning things, when they go wrong.

While Tezos has gone through many unfortunate events because of a centralized foundation to begin with; we had a lot of more time to think and question.

We are at the very beginning of decentralized governance adoption, and neither of the founders had expertise in this area.

However, I believe that certain amendments should have been more clearly thought, like the one Vitalik mentioned.

As humans, we are prone to make mistakes, and if we are open to learning from the mistakes of the past, we can grow.

The foundation of Tezos can very well be created in a decentralized fashion, and maybe through that way, we wouldn’t had to go through all the unfortunate problems we’ve been all gone through.

In the meanwhile, we can also state that Tezos’ technology is also wonderfully humane; it is open to mistakes, it is open to learning from the mistakes of the past, and it is open to growth.

Which is a good base for an evolutionary change, which may have revolutionary implications one day.

Tezos’ inherent self-amending cryptographic ledger, evolutionary decentralized governance mechanism, are great to head towards an unknown path.

But most importantly, there is a great community at Tezos, one that I have never seen in any crypto’s community. Here we don’t talk about lambos, we collaborate, we work, we strive to make things happen.

In the end, I think neither Vitalik, nor Kathleen is right or wrong.

Although I believe that Vitalik’s concern is really important.

If we wouldn’t go through so many unfortunate stuff, I believe that his concerns could become a reality, and we would operate in a very centralized fashion, and the people who question it would be demonized by other token holders as fudders.

The situation with delegation services can come to very reasonable grounds that can support the well-being of the network. In the current state, they are definitely not rightful, and prone to great risks, which is why Vitalik’s concerns are totally right on this matter; but it is something that can be solved.

In my next article, I will talk about my opinions on this particular subject, and how we can solve this problem through a variety of solutions that will support the growth of Tezos ecosystem.

The danger of centralization is one important subject Tezos community needs to take care of in order to bear fruits for the next generation governance models.

Sources;