Should we abolish DV?

I think DOT has more value than just monetary. The comparison of capitalist versus socialist is also a bit strange. I assume that DV is also fundamentally interested in increasing market capitalization. Other approaches may be prioritized for this. (I'm probably not aware of all of your disputes or disagreements.)
If you look closely, it could actually be bad to the technical benefits of the ecosystem if DOT was to grow significantly in value.
The demand for an asset that can be financially exploited or a sustainable one that is technically or maybe as well morally advanced are very different. Of course we all want both. But both sides should actually be taken into account.
(That should be mentioned. I consider OpenGov in its current form to be anything but morally right. But that's not the point.)

What is your exact accusation in the matter against DV?

We believe the W3F needs to take ownership of the consequences of their delegation.

If the W3F delegates to White American+European Males, after a while, the Asian Female (or any similar group outside the median choice) will conclude:
"Polkadot OpenGov is not a place for me."
"These people are too aggressive. Not our Asian culture."
[Yes, I have had actual people tell me this in private.]
A "World Computer" that is biased to Europeans is hardly a "World Computer". The level of toxicity got worse, not better with DVs with public Twitter feuds being visible to all. If this is the future of decentralized governance, its not good -- it excludes people and it sure looks like the W3F is in charge.

Only a few years ago there were entire Polkadot events conducted in Chinese AND English and Portuguese, and I felt this represented the ideal that Polkadot strived for, maybe all of crypto. Its too much to ask that every language be covered, that every community be treated equally and fairly, whatever that means. Perhaps the W3F could try to balance out their delegation in a "fair" way, but I think its better for W3F to not meddle in anything at all.

If the W3F does feel compelled to meddle, I believe the DVs should be selected to be focussed on GROWTH, with the kind of people and experience to run $10B-50B companies, not $10-50MM companies. Usually this involves people qualified to be on a Board of Directors who have experienced growth, and are cognizant of competition, and demand performance and observable impact. These kinds of people have low patience for racist policies or fair policies, and will want a world computer that utterly dominates the future of permissionless computing.

The use of word brotherhood means what it means, here, in link with his anglo-saxon university aspect , and I have a perfect idea of what it means here. The centralization of polkadot by wealth and the amplifying effects of staking alienated by the organizational brotherhood of Open Gov are fascinating subjects to observe since I started observing on it.

There is a sort of sectarianism there. So much so that subsocial becomes a closed network engaging, almost employing a community in an integration somewhat very suggestive in recent times.

Subsocial is the perfect exemple here. In my opinion the latter will obviously not be able to succeed as an open social network, but perhaps as a private social network or for employees, partners or collaborators of polkadot more or less directly since the subers seems to carry out tasks oriented through rewards in a form of hierarchical supervision specific to the polkadot organization. But they seem happy to follow this direction for the more active in this network, but are few in definitive.

This example is very telling, and obviously I do not adhere to it because I use subsocial for others personnal goal, and relieves me of any harmful influence on my ideas that I want to work.

For coming back to your point, your will is under fraternal community control in one way or another, and I'm sure of that!

Finally, it seem Open Gov to speak only to herself, it is a self-reinforcing circular movement, but definitely not open to anything other than herself!

Yours sincerely

I think all the DV candidates are passionate people about Polkadot, and great contributors. Therefore I'm in favor of giving them significant positions in the ecosystem. Having said that, giving individuals so much voting power, significanly higher than people who took higher risk by investing in DOT is wrong imho.

It's like giving your exponential employees in the company more voting power than a shareholder. It doesn't make sense to me. Voting power should be entitled to the one who took risk and put his hard money in Polkadot. Putting in your time and efforts isn't enough. It's well respected but not enough to get more power than someone who risks his own funds. Again, have nothing against any of the candidates and truly believe they should get an important position in the ecosystem, but not such a power.

Besides that there is the centralization issue. When some random user decides to delegate his voting power then it's totally fine, but when the W3F does it (and in a significant power) it breaks all the decentralization logic. They obviously have the right to do whatever they want with their DOT, but if we want to keep decentralization then they should at least delegate it in a way that a single DV won't have such power. They could delegate 100k DOT per candidate and keep it decentralized this way.

Since it's a sensitive topic, I want to repeat myself and emphasize that I fully respect each DV candidate and the fact they put themselves as candidates already shows their careness about the ecosystem. There is nothing to do with them personally but with the program itself that I'm totally against.

I think this discussion is good.

I also see a lot of text being written to convey simple ideas.

A lot of you guys seem to act, believe and reason based on mimetism. Polkadot is different. We shouldn't copy how the world around us works, but design something for an ideal world.

What is an ideal world? Everyone has a different point of view. I will give you mine.

An ideal world is a world with prosperity, it's a world with no wars and no human made disasters... Etc...

Here is how to solve all problems on Governance:

• The W3F should give away tokens based on a fundamental milestone - The people who want the token should work hard to have it. As they work, they get more and more voices, more and more vote, and over a period of let's say 3-10 years, depending on the scope of the project, the group of people who achieve it will be able to have a certain amount of the tokens.

So, anyone willing to participate to Governance should have free time and no financial constraints. They should be honest and transparent.

It seems like Giotto DF fits perfectly the above description.

Will it tend to a concentration of wealth, it might... Does it mean taking risks, it does. Does Giotto take risks? He does, a lot! Can anyone try, yes!

We need more Giottos!

Long live Polkadot!

Nope. So far, we've seen good results and a variety of opinions, when we're looking at the voting behaviour. No clear pattern.

We're in favour of giving engaged community members a voice, while they put their reputation on stake. So, as long as the chosen DVs have to put their name behind every vote (which currently is the case), it's beneficial for the overall eco, as long as voting turnout remains rather low.

However, we agree that DV should be a temporary measurement - once voting turnout gets significantly higher and whales have less impact, we can start thinking of retiring DV.