Coordination Research Group Report

1. 当我们在聊 Coordination 的时候,我们到底在聊什么?

协调定义

协调是大批参与者为了同一目标而去共同努力的方式。协调是一个极度广泛的行为,在日常生活中,小到朋友之间决定今晚去哪间饭店,大到国家之间的决策,都是一种协调的表现。协调是宇宙中最强大的力量,良好的协调能让人们共同团结起来,促成一项伟大事业的达成。

好的协调能促使一些伟大事业的诞生,如不同部门关于疾病药物的研发,为广大人群提供基础救济服务,坏的协调能让稳定的秩序变得动乱,如俄乌战争,部分人因为利益不和,而发起的国与国之间的战争,让很多人因此失去了生命,又如,韩国政府近期发生的动乱,这种内部不和、集体决策的协调失效,更是导致社会分裂与信任危机的重要因素

协调的反义词

协调的反义词是不合理的协调,我们常常把这种行为形容为‘勾结’,比较危险的协调是即一个人只与一小撮人协调,而不与其他人协调,从而导致陷入深渊,如小圈子贿选,一小搓人商量某种利于小团体的利益,从而损害的是更广大人的利益,我们常常把这种结果形容为‘勾结’

区块链里面的协调有哪些

1. 人与人之间的协调:共事

当你在和你的同事共事的过程中,也会有很多协调问题。团队成员如何确定工作量,一个团队里面的不同职位如何协调工作,人员之间通过某种机制共同商定一件事情,这部分协调为人与人之间的协调,包括治理、共事、分配等。

在区块链的世界中的一些协调工具

  1. Coordinape:基于赞赏行为给贡献者奖励的协议,适合去中心化团队。
  2. CharmVerse:建立关系和共同创建项目的管理工具,帮助团队成员同步任务和进展。
  3. FairSharing:链上贡献分配协议,可以用透明且无需信任的方式分配奖励。

2. 社区与社区之间的协调:合作

一个团体和另一个团体之间进行交涉时,也会有一些协调问题,例如不同的社区之间如何合作,如何确定同一目标,如何共同举办一个黑客松等。合作的目标通常是通过联合资源、共享经验或解决共同的问题来实现双赢。

一些区块链领域的协调案例

  • 黑客松合作:Gitcoin 常常举办跨社区的黑客松,鼓励不同社区的人才共享知识和资源。
  • 联合治理协议:如协议间的联合提案(例如多链 DAO 投票),让社区之间的合作更高效。

3. 链与链之间的协调:跨链

链与链之间的协调也是一种协调方式,不同的链之间如何使用同一套跨链标准,链与链之间的信息如何传输,以及链与链之间如何具有更好的互操作性。

  • 以太坊互操作论坛(EIF):今年的 Devcon 期间发生了一件具有里程碑意义的事件——以太坊互操作论坛(EIF)。这次聚会汇集了整个以太坊生态系统的关键参与者,他们抛开竞争,专注于共同的使命:让以太坊真正具有互操作性。

协调的核心是明确、透明与共识

无论是人与人之间的协调、社区之间的合作,还是链与链之间的互操作,协调的本质在于建立明确的目标、透明的机制和达成广泛的共识。通过合适的工具和方法,协调不仅可以降低摩擦成本,还能为各方创造更大的价值。

如何定义一个协调标准

协调的核心是明确,透明与共识, 虽然我们无法定义统一的协调标准,但是有一些路径是我们可以去逐步实现一个协调标准虽然我们无法定义统一的协调标准,但可以通过以下路径逐步实现:

  1. 透明的治理: 确保决策过程公开可见,增强参与者信任。使用一些工具如 Snapshot、CharmVerse 实现链上治理,提高透明度。
  2. 合理的资源分配: 基于贡献或需求分配资源,避免资源浪费和不公平。如应用 Coordinape、FairSharing 等工具,提供数据驱动的分配机制。
  3. 有效的反馈:建立清晰的反馈通道,让每个成员了解其工作对整体的影响。使用工具(如Discord、治理论坛)进行公开讨论并优化决策。

协调过程中难免遇见冲突

协调的反义词是“不合理的协调”,我们通常将其称为“勾结”,即一小撮人联合起来决策,做出有损于更大群体利益的行为。这种情况在协调失败时容易发生。

在现实中,不同的人或群体具有不同的判断标准,因此协调过程中难免会遇到冲突。面对冲突时,我们需要通过以下方式解决问题:

建立共同标准: 建立清晰的流程,减少主观判断带来的分歧

倾听与协商: 让所有利益相关者充分表达自己的意见,通过讨论找到双方的平衡点

最后的选择:分叉

  • 当冲突无法通过协调解决,区块链世界中提供了“分叉”这一独特机制,分叉允许分歧双方各自遵循自己的愿景,避免妥协导致的持续对立。

如 The DAO 事件在遭遇黑客攻击后,社区对于如何应对产生分歧。一部分人选择回滚链数据,最终形成以太坊(Ethereum);另一部分人坚持链不可篡改的原则,延续了以太坊经典(Ethereum Classic)。

Steem 与 Hive 的分叉孙宇晨收购 Steem 社区引发了治理危机,部分社区成员对新管理层不满,最终选择分叉,创建了 Hive 社区。

不同的生态具有不同的协调文化

值得有意思的是,文化角度也是一个社区协调的重要考虑因素,类似以太坊和比特币社区

Bitcoin 的协调方式

  • 任何人可以加入,也可以随时退出
  • 如果不同意现在 Bitcoin 的现状,你可以修改客户端分叉出去
  • 如果不同意某个升级,可以不升级 client,你依然还在 Bitcoin 网络

Ethereum 的协调方式

  • 任何人可以加入,也可以随时退出,但需要同意 Ethereum 的 roadmap
  • 如果你不同意 Ethereum 的现状,可以修改客户端分叉出去
  • 如果不同意某个升级,不升级 client,那么就会被踢出网络,不能继续在 Ethereum 网络

在我们与 ChatGPT 对话的时候,我们可以明显发现比特币和以太坊社区的差距

  • 以太坊社区:穿着未来感强烈的多彩服饰,与高科技互动,体现了开放、合作和创新精神。
  • 比特币社区:身穿简约实用的衣服,站在一座古老的堡垒中,表现出坚韧、专注和对稳定的承诺。


以太坊更倾向于通过开放讨论和技术创新解决问题,吸引多样化的参与者。比特币则更关注维护现有规则的完整性,避免过多变动。

从比特币和以太坊的对比中可以看出,不同文化背景下的社区选择了符合自身目标与价值观的协调方式

  • 比特币的规则简洁且坚固,适合长期价值存储的生态。
  • 以太坊的灵活性与创新性,使其成为技术实验与应用发展的理想平台。

Reference

1. When we talk about Coordination, what are we really talking about?

Definition of Coordination

Coordination refers to the process by which a large number of participants collaborate toward a shared goal. It is an exceptionally broad concept, encompassing everyday activities such as friends deciding on a restaurant for dinner to large-scale decisions between nations. Coordination is one of the most powerful forces in the universe; effective coordination enables people to unite and achieve remarkable goals.

Good coordination can lead to the birth of great achievements, such as the collaborative development of life-saving medications or the provision of basic relief services to large populations. However, poor coordination can lead to chaos and instability. For instance, the Russia-Ukraine war exemplifies how a lack of consensus and conflicting interests between nations has resulted in devastating human and economic consequences. Similarly, recent governmental unrest in South Korea highlights how internal discord and failed collective decision-making have contributed to social division and a crisis of trust.

The Opposite of Coordination

The opposite of coordination is “collusion.” Collusion occurs when a person coordinates only with a small group for exclusive benefit, neglecting the broader collective, often leading to harmful outcomes. Examples include small-group election fraud or private agreements that prioritize the interests of a few at the expense of the majority. This negative form of coordination often undermines trust and equity within larger systems.

Forms of Coordination in Blockchain

1. Coordination Between Individuals: Collaboration

In professional or team environments, coordination often involves resolving issues such as workload allocation, defining roles, and establishing mechanisms for joint decision-making. This type of coordination covers governance, collaboration, and resource allocation between individuals.

Blockchain-Based Coordination Tools:

  1. Coordinape: A protocol for rewarding contributors based on peer appreciation, ideal for decentralized teams.
  2. CharmVerse: A management tool for building relationships and co-creating projects, enabling task and progress synchronization among team members.
  3. FairSharing: An on-chain contribution distribution protocol that allocates rewards transparently and trustlessly.

2. Coordination Between Communities: Cooperation

When one group interacts with another, coordination often involves questions of cooperation, such as how communities collaborate, align goals, and co-host events like hackathons. Cooperation typically aims to achieve mutual benefits by pooling resources, sharing expertise, or addressing common challenges.

Examples of Blockchain Coordination:

  • Hackathon Collaboration: Gitcoin frequently organizes cross-community hackathons to encourage knowledge-sharing and resource pooling.
  • Joint Governance Proposals: Multi-chain DAO voting enables efficient collaboration between communities.

3. Coordination Between Blockchains: Cross-Chain Interoperability

Coordination between blockchains involves adopting shared standards, transmitting information seamlessly, and improving interoperability.

  • Ethereum Interoperability Forum (EIF): A milestone event at this year’s Devcon where key participants from the Ethereum ecosystem set aside competition to focus on their shared mission: achieving true interoperability for Ethereum.

Core Principles of Coordination: Clarity, Transparency, and Consensus

Whether among individuals, communities, or blockchains, the essence of coordination lies in establishing clear goals, transparent mechanisms, and broad consensus. By leveraging appropriate tools and methods, coordination can reduce friction and create greater value for all parties involved.

Establishing Standards for Coordination

The essence of coordination lies in clarity, transparency, and consensus. While a universal standard for coordination may not exist, the following steps can help establish effective standards:

  1. Transparent Governance: Ensure decision-making processes are visible and instill trust among participants. Tools like Snapshot and CharmVerse facilitate on-chain governance to enhance transparency.
  2. Fair Resource Allocation: Distribute resources based on contribution or need to avoid waste and inequality. Tools such as Coordinape and FairSharing offer data-driven allocation mechanisms.
  3. Effective Feedback: Create clear channels for feedback to help members understand their impact on the whole. Tools like Discord and governance forums facilitate open discussions and decision-making optimization.

Addressing Conflicts in Coordination

The antithesis of effective coordination is unreasonable coordination, often termed collusion—a scenario where a small group prioritizes its own interests at the expense of the majority. Such failures in coordination are common causes of conflict.

In reality, differing perspectives make conflict unavoidable in coordination processes. To address conflicts, consider the following approaches:

  1. Establish Shared Standards: Clear procedures reduce disagreements stemming from subjective judgments.
  2. Listen and Negotiate: Allow all stakeholders to voice their opinions and find a balanced solution through dialogue.
  3. The Ultimate Option: Forking
  • When conflicts cannot be resolved through coordination, blockchain systems provide a unique mechanism: forking. Forking allows diverging parties to pursue their visions independently, avoiding prolonged confrontation.

Examples:

  • The DAO Incident: After a hack, the Ethereum community split into Ethereum (ETH) and Ethereum Classic (ETC) based on differing values around immutability and rollback decisions.
  • Steem vs. Hive Fork: Discontent with new management under Justin Sun led part of the Steem community to fork and create Hive.

Different Cultures of Coordination in Ecosystems

Cultural differences significantly influence coordination approaches within blockchain ecosystems, as seen in the Bitcoin and Ethereum communities.

Bitcoin’s Coordination Approach:

  • Anyone can join or leave at any time.
  • If dissatisfied with Bitcoin’s current state, one can modify the client and fork.
  • If disagreeing with an upgrade, one can refrain from upgrading and remain in the Bitcoin network.

Ethereum’s Coordination Approach:

  • Anyone can join or leave but must agree with Ethereum’s roadmap.
  • If dissatisfied with Ethereum’s current state, one can modify the client and fork.
  • If disagreeing with an upgrade, refusing to upgrade results in exclusion from the Ethereum network.

Through these differences, we observe contrasting coordination cultures:

  • Ethereum’s Community: Embodies openness, collaboration, and innovation, represented by futuristic attire and interactions with cutting-edge technology.
  • Bitcoin’s Community: Reflects resilience, focus, and a commitment to stability, represented by practical clothing and a fortress-like environment.

These cultural distinctions shape how each ecosystem approaches coordination and governance.

Ethereum tends to address challenges through open discussions and technological innovation, attracting a diverse range of participants. Bitcoin, on the other hand, focuses on preserving the integrity of its existing rules, minimizing changes.

The contrast between Bitcoin and Ethereum highlights how communities with different cultural backgrounds adopt coordination methods aligned with their goals and values:

  • Bitcoin’s simple and robust rules make it well-suited for an ecosystem centered on long-term value storage.
  • Ethereum’s flexibility and emphasis on innovation position it as an ideal platform for technological experimentation and application development.
1 Like

Next Step

  1. 如何让共谋发生的成本更高,从而促使更好的协调
  2. 以太坊互操作论坛介绍
  3. 匿名投票,随机选择投票人,导致共谋成本更高(应用思考)
1 Like

以太坊中的“协调”机制正在面临前所未有的压力试验,若是机制失败,短期内我们或许没有体感,但是长期会因“共谋”的发生而造成角度危险。

比特币已经如 chatgpt 给出的插图一般,成为了区块链世界的价值堡垒,比特币作为数字黄金近乎完美,但相对以太坊来说,比特币完全的去中心化协调方式会放弃很多技术和应用上的更多可能性,以太坊更加“入世”,开放包容,但是面临着协调机制上可能的转折:

如果在接下来的一段时间内以太坊内没有建立可靠的协调机制,以太坊可能会逐渐被少数人控制,走向中心化的道路,这必将导致寡头和覆灭,但是以太坊没有退路,以太坊不能放弃灵活性和创新性来追求极致的去中心化,以太坊需要在效率和去中心化之间找到平衡,这很难,人和人的协调机制/文化在这里尤为重要。

在清迈,CKB 的场子里,听阿剑说到 EIP-1559 的推进中,可能存在一些疑似“勾结”的行为,这显然是有悖于“协调”的透明治理氛围的,以下是阿剑分享的PPT,或许我们可以约他一起聊聊 Coordination 的重要性,以及如何避免“共谋”。

A-technical-explaination-of-centralization-in-ethereum-protocol.pdf (462.8 KB)

我认为 “协调” 的反义词是 ”勾结“ 这样的描述不太准确
从个体而言,论述方面是不是可以减少一些“大多数”、“少数人”的字眼。
首先是在社会主义国家,“大多数”常常是被代表的。
其次谁是多数,谁是少数很难说清楚,通常是主观的判断。
如果采用一些科学计数的方法,就会发现大部分群众是容易被鼓动的。

在现实世界中,无处不协调,因为现代社会依赖的是分工合作, ”协调“ 是效率的保障

但在区块链世界的 “协调” 更加重要,这里是基于 “共识” 非常重要,没有 “共识” 我们很难建立满足信任的网络国家,一切都是黑暗森林的状态。而 “共识” 的反义词是冲突

所以区块链世界里的 ”协调“ ,除了加快效率的协作之外,还有更重要的一点,就是如何从 ”冲突“ 到形成 “共识”
在现实世界,没有形成共识,这个世界仍在能够运转,因为有政府强力的干预。
但在区块链世界,如果没有形成共识,那么网络国家则会彻底停摆。

3 Likes

可能将词语译为这样,协调是一种良好的行为,不合理的协调,我们常常将此称呼为‘勾结’

1 Like

或者我这样理解马老师想表达的意思
“协调” 是从 “冲突”“共识” 的必经之路
但是通常极少数人对于社区的共识并不 care,而是想谋得私利,那么他们会绕过 “协调” 这个过程,只是通过取巧的手段,抄近道,说服和鼓动极少数人,绕过达成共识这个步骤,达成自己的目的。这符合 “勾结” 的定义
但我仍然认为,它上升不到对立的层面:
假设没有这样谋利的极少数,另一种情况也会导致协调失败,那就是:大多数人的治理冷漠,遇到 “冲突” 集体逃避,不通过 “协调” 来形成共识,而将起搁置,直至社区出现分叉。
这些可以是协调的反面

1 Like