Table of Contents
- Context and Purpose of Our Discussion
- Three Core Problems We're Solving
- Problem 1: Legibility and Understandability
- Problem 2: Automation and User-Friendliness
- Problem 3: Legitimacy and Security
- How Finalization Addresses These Problems
Context and Purpose of Our Discussion
Tadas, thank you for your thoughtful comments about finalization in the Eden+Fractal consensus process. Your observation that "I'm thinking here about how to replace our manual process with a spreadsheet and everything with something more automated and user-friendly" really crystallized several important considerations about the evolution of Eden+Fractal. This discussion has helped me understand both the problems we're trying to solve and the elegant solutions that finalization can provide.
Three Core Problems We're Solving
Through our discussion, I've identified three interconnected problems that the finalization process addresses:
Problem 1: Legibility and Understandability
Currently, the Eden+Fractal consensus process lacks clear, accessible documentation and tooling that makes it immediately understandable to newcomers. As a host, I repeatedly need to explain how the legislative consensus process interacts with the executive and judicial branches in our tripartite governance structure. Without dedicated study of our articles, videos, and regular attendance at events, people easily become confused about why we have multiple governance processes and how they interact. The fact that these processes exist in disparate tools—the ORDAO app for executive functions, spreadsheets for legislative tracking, and the Respect interface for reputation—creates significant opportunity for confusion. This complexity prevents scalability and limits our ability to attract funding, as potential supporters struggle to understand our governance system.
Problem 2: Automation and User-Friendliness
As you correctly noted, we currently lack an automated, user-friendly system for Eden+Fractal. The process requires a practitioner who deeply understands all the moving parts, making it difficult for other communities to adopt. Without an application that communities can readily implement, we're limiting the spread of this powerful governance innovation. The manual nature of our current process creates friction and prevents the natural scaling that should be possible with fractal governance.
Problem 3: Legitimacy and Security
The finalization of blocks provides crucial benefits for the legitimacy, verifiability, and security of the legislative process. For Eden Fractal to attract serious funding from sources like the Ethereum Foundation or Gitcoin Grants, we need to demonstrate that our governance protocol is rigorous and secure. Funders need to understand that there are no weak links in our system, that the protocol is sound, and that it can reliably coordinate communities at scale.
How Finalization Addresses These Problems
Your insight about finalization provides elegant solutions to each of these challenges:
For Legibility: The finalization process using ORDAO creates a clear checkpoint system that makes the state of proposals and decisions visible and verifiable. This resembles Bitcoin's block confirmation system, where the legislative consensus process achieves probabilistic finality that becomes practically irreversible after one or two events. The fact that town hall events are recorded and open to the entire community adds additional legitimacy, verifiability, and security to the root consensus protocol of the Eden+Fractal Council.
For Automation: By implementing finalization through smart contracts, we create the foundation for an automated system that other communities can easily adopt. Starting with manual hashing via IPFS and Ethereum Attestation Service, we can progressively automate using tools like Piñata scripts that pull from Google Sheets API, eventually building toward solutions using Tableland or custom smart contracts. This progression from manual to automated makes the system increasingly user-friendly while maintaining security.
For Legitimacy: The finalization mechanism demonstrates the sophistication and security of our governance protocol. Just as investors trust Bitcoin or Ethereum because they understand the security model, funders will support Eden Fractal when they see the robust finalization process that ensures decisions are legitimate, verifiable, and resistant to manipulation. The combination of off-chain consensus with on-chain finalization provides resilience—the community can coordinate even if blockchain infrastructure faces issues, while still maintaining cryptographic proof of decisions.
The Path Forward
This discussion has clarified that we need to create several key artifacts:
First, we need an Eden Fractal Governance Guide that clearly explains how the tripartite structure works, making it accessible to newcomers and potential funders. This guide should distill the most important information into a format that can be understood in minutes, not hours.
Second, we need to progress toward an all-in-one application where the governance hub explains the interplay between branches and provides interfaces for each function. This will solve the legibility and automation problems simultaneously.
Third, we need to implement progressive finalization, starting with manual processes and evolving toward full automation, demonstrating both immediate functionality and long-term vision.
The finalization discussion isn't just about technical implementation—it's about strengthening Eden+Fractal to become the robust, scalable, and fundable governance system that can truly implement fractal decision-making throughout society. By addressing these problems systematically, we create the foundation for Eden Fractal's growth and the broader adoption of fractal governance.