@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ put up to an [upgrade proposal vote](@/docs/glossary/upgrade.md) by the
2121last for 30 days (June 20th) or until an absolute majority is reached. We’d like
2222to take this opportunity to discuss two things. [First](#changelist), what the
2323proposed changes are, and [second](#senate), a review of how Urbit governance
24−works and where we’re at with respect to the decentralization process.
24+works and where we’re at in the decentralization process.
2525
2626Before we dive into what the proposed changes are, let’s review what the Senate
2727is actually capable of changing. Urbit ID is really two sets of smart contracts:
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ according to the governance rules we [detail below](#senate).
4141
4242## Changelist {#changelist}
4343
44−The currently open vote to Ecliptic contains the following changes:
44+The Galactic Senate is voting on the following changes to Ecliptic:
4545
4646- Fixed ERC721 compatibility
4747- Self-modifying proxies
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ The currently open vote to Ecliptic contains the following changes:
4949
5050### Fixed ERC721 compatibility
5151
52−The contract definition of the Ecliptic includes various functions and events
52+In Ecliptic, the contract includes various functions and events
5353that make it conform to the ERC721 (non-fungible token) standard. However, two
5454events have [ever so slightly
5555non-confirming](https://github.com/urbit/azimuth/issues/8) descriptions. This
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ Owners of Azimuth assets are allowed to configure "proxy addresses" for those
6666assets: Ethereum addresses allowed to act "as" the owner, but only for a subset
6767of operations. For example, setting the management proxy will let you change
6868your networking keys and sponsor using that address, just like your ownership
69−address can. This is useful for keeping the ownership keys in very cold storage,
69+address can. This is useful for keeping the ownership keys in very cold storage
7070while still letting you perform lower-value operations.
7171
7272Currently, only the ownership address is allowed to change proxy addresses.
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ storage.
8383
8484[The Claims
8585contract](https://github.com/urbit/azimuth/blob/master/contracts/Claims.sol)
86−lets asset managers associate various attestations with their identity. For
86+lets asset managers associate various "claims" with their identity. For
8787example, an Ethereum address to send donations to, or proving ownership of a
8888Twitter account.
8989
@@ -99,10 +99,10 @@ fresh with a new contract that contains [the
9999fix](https://github.com/urbit/azimuth/pull/32) for the described bug.
100100
101101The reason we must do an Ecliptic upgrade to switch to a new Claims contract, is
102−that it is tied in with the logic for transferring an asset. If the asset is
102+that it is tied in with the logic for transferring an asset. If an asset is
103103flagged for "reset" (common when transferring to/from someone other than
104104yourself), its configured proxies, networking keys and claims are cleared during
105−transfer. As such, the Ecliptic will need to know about the address of the new
105+transfer. As such, Ecliptic will need to know about the address of the new
106106Claims contract.
107107
108108## Urbit Governance {#senate}
@@ -111,12 +111,9 @@ Claims contract.
111111
112112The ultimate goal of Urbit is to become a digital republic manifested as a peer
113113to peer network owned and controlled by its users. The goal of Tlon, then, is to
114−become a company which builds products for Urbit rather than being the primary
114+become one of many companies who build products for Urbit rather than being the primary
115115driving force behind its development. We’d like to take this opportunity to
116−spell out our perspective on where we’re at in that process. We’ve already
117−written a good deal about Urbit governance in the past on this blog, so we avoid
118−rehashing too much, but the first contract upgrade is an apt time for a routine
119−checkup. Here are some previous posts that are relevant, but please note that
116+spell out our perspective on where we’re at in that process. Here are some previous posts that are relevant, but please note that
120117some of them are several years old and as such may not accurately reflect our
121118current position, but still serve as useful historical markers. We hope to
122119revisit and refresh these documents soon.
@@ -134,7 +131,7 @@ urbit.org](@/blog/governance-of-urbit.md)
134131
135132The Galactic Senate is composed of all [galaxy](@/docs/glossary/galaxy.md)
136133holders, which at present consists of more than 100 individuals and a few
137−organizations, including Tlon and the Urbit.org Foundation. Using the Azimuth
134+organizations, including Tlon and the Urbit Foundation. Using the Azimuth
138135voting contract, the Senate can present and vote on two kinds of proposals:
139136[document proposals](@/docs/glossary/docvote.md) and [upgrade
140137proposals](@/docs/glossary/upgrade.md). Thus far, all matters which the Senate
@@ -167,13 +164,13 @@ primarily driven by selling or giving away these galaxies. On [June 1,
167164> contributed code or services, won a contest, or were just in the right place
168165> at the right time.
169166
170−In the period since then leading up to the present, Tlon has sold a number of
171−its galaxies to fund development, and others have changed hands, to the point
167+Since then, Tlon has sold a number of
168+its galaxies to fund development and others have changed hands to the point
172169that Tlon and urbit.org no longer possess a majority share of galaxies. In
173170January 2019, [Curtis gave all of his galaxies](@/blog/a-founders-farewell.md) to
174171Tlon when he left the project. In August 2020 we shared an update on the [known
175172distribution of address space](@/blog/value-of-address-space-pt3.md), where
176−Curtis’ galaxies are marked as Tlon’s “naked galaxies”. Since then, Tlon
173+Curtis’ galaxies are marked as Tlon’s “naked galaxies”. Shortly thereafter, Tlon
177174disbursed its naked galaxies among the employees that wanted one who did not
178175already possess one, thus removing Tlon and urbit.org’s controlling share of the
179176Senate. Galaxies held by current and former Tlon employees are entirely
@@ -184,9 +181,7 @@ near future.
184181Distribution of stars is much more difficult to know. There is an active market
185182for stars on [OpenSea](https://opensea.io/collection/urbit-id), so we know that
186183they are changing hands frequently, but checking the number of distinct Ethereum
187−addresses that hold stars does not tell you very much information since there
188−are many legitimate reasons one person might hold each of their stars at
189−different addresses.
184+addresses that hold stars does not tell you very much information since a single person can control multiple adresses.
190185
191186### Software and smart contracts
192187
@@ -195,10 +190,10 @@ Governance](https://urbit.org/blog/the-dao-as-a-lesson-in-decentralized-governan
195190we are keenly aware of the threat of _decentralization theater_. Urbit has
196191undergone steady progress towards decentralization, and with the developments we
197192outline below, it’s never been more clear that the project is beginning to leave
198−the cradle of Tlon. It’s also important to note that decentralization of a
199−project is always a procession away from an initial centralized state—you cannot
193+the cradle of Tlon. It’s also important to note that the decentralization of a
194+project is always a movement away from an initial centralized state—you cannot
200195go from A to Z without first traversing every letter in between. While Urbit was
201−centralized during its earliest stages, the journey towards a network owned and
196+centralized at the beginning, the journey towards a network owned and
202197controlled by the users is now well underway.
203198
204199In the past, nearly all Urbit software was written by Tlon. While Tlon is still the only corporation actively updating Urbit’s MIT-licensed open source software, namely [Vere](@/docs/glossary/vere.md) (the runtime), and [Arvo](@/docs/glossary/arvo.md) (the kernel), unaffiliated individuals have been making enormous contributions to Urbit over the past couple of years via the [grants program](https://grants.urbit.org/history). Recent examples include the [Bitcoin node and wallet integration](https://github.com/urbit/urbit/pull/4940), [WebRTC integration](https://grants.urbit.org/proposals/21131866-webrtc-gall-agent-and-external-app), [Port, an Urbit installer and ship manager](https://github.com/arthyn/port), and [`|fuse`, an important primitive for 3rd party software distribution](https://github.com/urbit/urbit/pull/4820).
@@ -252,11 +247,7 @@ Urbit would be that the Senate makes sweeping changes to the PKI and invites a
252247schism like that outlined above.
253248
254249For these reasons, there are strong disincentives for any one organization or
255−individual to acquire too many galaxies. The more galaxies one party possesses,
256−the fewer there are with strong incentives to stimulate efforts to build on the
257−network, reducing the value of holding that space, and the greater the risk that
258−the users will perceive this as a power grab by a party without their interests
259−in mind. This is in contrast to real-life republics, where there is little risk
250+individual to acquire too many galaxies. If galaxy owenship becomes more centralized, individuals will be less incentivized to build on the network which will reduce the value of address space. Furthermore, such centralization might provoke a fork if such centralized powers are perceived as malicious by the users. This is in contrast to real-life republics, where there is little risk
260251for one party to accumulate as much power as they can manage since the cost to
261252the citizens to overthrow that power is enormous. Thus, only especially
262253egregious displays of power ever result in rebellion. Within the Urbit republic,
@@ -277,20 +268,18 @@ With (ii), we see this to be the case on many early blockchain projects where
277268power is shared by the developers and the miners, but what each is capable of
278269doing has never been codified, and thus users of the blockchain can never have a
279270great deal of certainty of what changes might occur in the future. This doesn’t
280−guarantee a bad outcome, but it does create more wariness for individuals to
281−contribute to a project when they cannot know whether they really have a say in
282−its direction. Recognizing this issue, many newer blockchain and
271+guarantee a bad outcome, but it does create more wariness among developers when they cannot know whether they really have a say in
272+the project's direction. Recognizing this issue, many newer blockchain and
283273blockchain-adjacent projects have built-in governance mechanisms that lay out
284274exactly what an individual can expect should they join and contribute to that
285275network.
286276
287−As for (i), with Urbit being a wholly new kind of network, it would take some
288−incredible luck and crystal ball gazing to get the PKI exactly right on the very
277+As for (i), with Urbit being a wholly new kind of network, it would take
278+incredible luck to get the PKI exactly right on the very
289279first try without ever needing another modification. Thus, some mechanism was
290280needed to guarantee that the PKI’s logic could be altered. Leaving control of
291−Azimuth in the hands of Tlon would have just granted Tlon dictatorial power and
292−a future that becomes more uncertain the further one gazes. There’s certainly
293−room to argue that the Galactic Senate is not a perfect system, but our interim
281+Azimuth in the hands of Tlon would have just granted Tlon dictatorial power, which Tlon nor Urbit users desired. There’s certainly
282+room to argue that the Galactic Senate is not a perfect system: our interim
294283constitution did outline potential roles for stars and planets to play in
295284governance in the future, so there is ample opportunity for the system to evolve
296285in response to the will of the users. As always, it is important to keep in mind