I have to say that I'm happy that Ethereum does not do on-chain governance for this very reason. It more or less follows the IETF principle of "rough consensus". [0] As far as smart contracts are concerned; they're hardly "contracts", but you probably already knew that. Even Vitalik Buterin regrets calling them that way [1]. [0]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus [1]: twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/10511…...

I don't know why this is downvoted, it's completely accurate. Source: [0] [0]: twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/1051160932699770882

As far as I understand it, that's not the sort of thing Ethereum contracts would cover. The contract is just an computer agreement between trustless systems to run code. Vitalik Buterin has said he regrets the term "smart contracts" because of the usual meaning of the word contracts: twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/10511…... > To be clear, at this point I quite regret adopting the term "smart contracts". I should have called them something more boring and technical, perhaps something like "persistent scripts". > I do think that persistent scripts controlling assets compete with the legal system on some margins, but so do locks on doors. So IMO it's wrong to equate them with a specific philosophy of law privatization.