Enjoyed this recent "conversation" between @hasufl and @DegenSpartan. I agree with many of DS's points, but one particular argument DS made in the final ~two minutes struck me as a bit weak. https://twitter.com/hasufl/status/1327187879626481665

DS tentatively accepts Hasu's label of "governance minimalist" in large part because "governance token holders are free-riding quite heavily in proportion to the value they create [relative to the value created protocol builders/developers]."

This is true, of course: no YFI holder, no matter how active in governance, has done as much for the protocol as @AndreCronjeTech or @bantg.

And yet, what @DegenSpartan seems to be questioning here is not "governance tokens" per se, but the shareholder model writ large.

The debate over shareholders' rightful place within the firm has been raging since M. Friedman wrote his classic essay 50 years ago ( http://umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf).

In fact, some some recent articles (e.g. this piece in the HBR https://hbr.org/2002/01/the-incredibly-unproductive-shareholder) track well with DS's sentiments.

I don't have a grand theory to share, but I will say that @DegenSpartan's argument strikes me as normative, not descriptive.

Which is to say, Jeff Bezos *may* contribute more to Amazon than the passive shareholders, but this in itself is no reason to be bearish on AMZN.

"Governance minimalism" could make sense for other reasons, e.g. if you believe protocols can't capture value in the long run.

But if you're a "gov minimalist" because you disagree with profit distributions, your issue is not with gov tokens, but with the equity model in general