Agreed. I think it could be a great way to raise money for some kind of cause though.
I'd like to see some proof that the charity-runner isn't going to abscond with the money once it was done, either due to maliciousness, or even something like getting stressed out over success (like some Kickstarters have done.)
(And yeah, I know - it's not like it's a Bitcoin/blockchain only problem - but at least with "real" money, there's typically a system in place where you can at least start trying to get the money back.)
Seems like it just puts in a mechanism for changing the protocol without forking the chain, but I'm not sure why people couldn't continue running the old protocol, effectively forking it anyway (other than a "look, we all agreed to no forks, you're explicitly a dick if you fork it, not just someone with a disagreement" angle.)
> Updates to the protocol can be required to carry formal proofs indicating that they respect agreed core principles agreed upon by the stakeholders.
Which doesn't really make sense; how do you write a formal proof that something align with someone's core principles?