While fully objective systems are the ideal, the reality is that some parts of decentralised governance just can’t operate that way yet. Ethereum itself is a good example: core development decisions and Ethereum Foundation stewardship ultimately rely on a subjective, socially coordinated, “council-like” process. Decisions are shaped by discussion, expert opinion and rough consensus rather than a strict algorithm or purely on-chain mechanism. So introducing a structured council in this protocol wouldn’t be adding something unusual or foreign to the ecosystem, it would simply formalise a pattern that already exists.
It seems that what’s being proposed is a transparent, criteria-driven council intended to address a long-standing issue within the Ethereum network. If we accept that this problem exists—and if we genuinely care about the network’s long-term resilience, competitiveness, and ability to evolve—then it’s something that ultimately needs to be resolved. In an ultra-competitive environment, leaving structural weaknesses unaddressed isn’t a neutral choice; it’s a risk to the network’s future. This proposal offers a structured way to confront that problem rather than continuing to ignore it.