When should groups deliberate—and when should they vote? That question sounds abstract, but it shapes how we govern everything—from ancient Athens to modern legislatures and even open-source software communities. As more of our decision-making moves online, it’s becoming one of the defining questions of online governance. @ethereum , @solana, and @Optimism are three major blockchain projects that each offer a different answer to this age-old question. –Ethereum relies on rough consensus, debating and making decisions without any voting, an idea that hearkens back to Athenian assemblies and Quaker Meetings. –Solana mixes debate with a small number of advisory votes, blending deliberative democracy with a little bit of representative democracy. –Optimism debates but also votes frequently, and does it onchain, going far in the direction of representative and even direct democracy. Each is running a live experiment in how to govern democratically. But which way is better? My bold answer: it depends. When trust is high and groups are small, discussion and rough consensus work best. Voting can slow things down and harden factions. Rough consensus gives weight to expertise and intensity, avoids public “wins” and “losses,” and can be safer in adversarial settings. But as communities grow, voting helps—by measuring preferences, adding legitimacy, and closing off endless debate. Voting forces resolution, surfaces real sentiment at scale in ways that discussion cannot, and adds transparency when trust breaks down and people disagree over what the group’s “consensus” even is. So neither is inherently better. The right balance depends on culture, scale, and trust. Crypto networks are running fascinating new experiments in self-governance—and the results may help us to understand timeless questions about democratic design and point to better ways to govern the online platforms and technologies of the future. Check out the full post for @a16zcrypto , which is linked in the comments.