নিঃশব্দ,অদৃশ্য power

আমি CoinMetrics-এর KPI-তেওপণতা: “গভর্ন্যান্স? crypto-তে ‘গভর্ন্যান্‌স’মানে?”

প্রথমদিকে DAO,ভোটিং tokens,47-পৃষ্ঠা governance section -এর

তবুও: Bitcoin-এ कोई formal governance नाइ।

1 vote? No. 1 proposal? No.

অথচ—কিছুই brokenহয়নি।

This is not negligence. It’s intentionality.

Code, Hashrate & the People: The Three Pillars

Bitcoin runs on three forces that silently balance each other:

• Developers: they write the code—but can’t force upgrades.
• Miners: they validate transactions—but can’t rewrite history without consensus.
• Holders: they own BTC—but their ‘vote’ is simply moving funds elsewhere.

No one holds permanent power. But together? They form an ecosystem where change only happens when everyone agrees—quietly, through migration and adoption.

It’s like a democracy where everyone gets to leave if they don’t like the rules—no ballots needed.

When You Remove PoW, Governance Creeps In

Now here’s where things get interesting: PoW is the only solution to Byzantine faults at scale. Remove it—say you switch to PoA or PoS—and suddenly you need someone to decide who gets to sign blocks.

That’s where governance emerges—not as an add-on feature, but as a necessity.

With PoA chains like Jouleverse, you must vet validators. Who controls them? How do you stop sybil attacks? You can’t just open doors and hope for the best—it becomes a permissioned system disguised as decentralized.

And then comes incentive distribution: in PoW, miners are rewarded by mining new coins automatically. In non-PoW chains? Someone has to decide who deserves rewards—how much—and when. That decision-making process? That’s governance—with all its political risks and centralization traps.