This is a general idea of how to implement a governing system over a koin.
Hopefully, even if incorrect, some principles and ideas here can inspire or lead to a better governing system for crypto-currency.
Unofficial board of advisors - includes those who no longer hold positions, but out of public respect, have become advisors to the koin. Also could include admired people, inventors, or others in the space.
7 chairs of leadership - main governing circle or board. Basically have ultimate power over governing, but little over implementing. As well as making wise choices, they must be charismatic and capable enough, as a whole, to convince users and miners to implement ideas and changes.
Make code changes for users to vote into acceptance. Can disable miners. (In place of chair we can maybe use word position, seat, or whatever)
Lower board of 17 members - As the koin grows, it may be necessary to add/activate a second lower board. This board could limit or screen the users that the top board can decide to disable. In case of an emergency, the 17 could vote to temporarily accept needed code until the user vote. If koin is set aside to be used as a tax mechanism, this could be controlled by the 17 as well as the top board. Also this board could be a place to find good candidates for the top board.
Users - all changes in code must be accepted by 60% vote of users. Miners are honor-bound to implement the changes voted into acceptance. Users can remove board members with a 2/3 percent vote (and maybe 1/3 vote of miners). Also users and miners vote for new board members thru and enforced by the network.
Miners - hold all natural power to implement changes to the koin code. If they disagree with the 7's decision, or feel a user vote has been manipulated, they can refuse on individual level to implement the code change. Can appeal being disabled by chair member.
For some votes 10% active users must vote. For others such as code change, new chair members, removing chair members, it might be more or less.
The top board members have the right to review and reject new miners. They also can disable any miner. (Perhaps 2 members required to disable a miner, if miners are assigned—and to someone else.)
The top chair/position is voted in from members. Members are voted in by users and miners. Eight years max as board member.
If appealed, the network requires a majority vote to disable a miner.
The 7 are governed by their own rules. To remove own members requires half/majority + 1 vote. (5 of 8 votes, where top chair is worth 2.) This may need a small confirmation vote by users/miners. To remove from office, otherwise, requires 2/3 miners, 2/3 users. (May need minimum % vote of active)
Consider this idea: To actually remove someone, their time left in office must be subtracted, and it costs 1/2 the time (split evenly) of those who vote for their removal. I call it the bee effect.
Perhaps code submitted by less than unanimous vote of chair holders, or major vs minor change requires a different vote, especially in minimum vote percentage.
Miners/Users: Ability to appeal or question a decision to disable a miner or user. Part of the process of appealing could be lengthy proof of being a real person, or that justifies them not updating code. Forces network to get majority vote from top board. (Expecting most computer generated and illegal users will never bother appealing, because its a pain.) 2 board members can vote to expedite an appeal. To immediately remove a node, requires a board vote, otherwise disabling takes time and allows the user to appeal.
If it becomes too difficult to become a miner of koin in the future, one could consider applying to be a sub-miner of some trusted miner. I foresee that perhaps banks, governments, or other entities could be miners, as well as common individuals, and large miners could have sub-miners. These large miners could be important since among the random miners chosen for each transaction or operation, the code is might choose a few more trusted miners.
Disabling users should possibly be delegated to a sub-organization under the 7 since there could be many cases to review. Basically every legitimate user should be allowed, and multiple users can belong to a person, but they should be associated to one vote. A person owning multiple organizations using koin might be allowed limited more votes. (Its expected that some users might represent multiple people (like family members) or one person to have 2 votes, but the idea and principle here is to create a way for users of the koin to have a voice, and eliminate the ability of a hacker or some organization to control the vote.)
Chair positions or sub-keys, may be given to important people in community, like a owner of a bank, founder of something, or government leader. These people may elect to delegate, if present responsibilities over occupy them. If the founder of a large exchange was elected to a chair, for example, he or she might give their sub-key to another to operate in their place. It may even be a sub-ordinate in his/her organization. But sub-keys can be disabled or a vote overridden by the chair key. Multiple sub-keys may be allowed to divide responsibilities.
Kappa: refers to what some call crypto-currency. We need a name this new type of money or commodity. I use the word koin when talking about a blockchain or bitcoin based currency.
Delta: refers to a bank-like institution, exchange or distributer or that deals in kappa. The purpose of this new naming system is to allow for new laws to be made that accommodate the electronic nature of kappa or crypto-currency.
I believe experts in the bitcoin/crypto-currency space along with banking experts should preemptively set guidelines and rules for Deltas, so that various countries can adopt these rules into laws that internationally promote safe and fair behavior.
I think plural of kappa is kappa (currency) or kappas (currencies), plural of delta is deltas.
The last paper or page of ideas was not fully explained. Here are some thoughts.
Eventually exchanges will spring up and koin will be available for sale using any currency, but the network where big players (or anyone else) may want to make a purchase, will use bitcoin only, until another kappa rivals it.
Users are anyone with an identity who buy into koin. I used a different word, investors, which I suppose is ok.
Limiting accounts is mostly to prevent too many votes to go to any one organization. Also miner accounts have identities to limit accounts. To be honest, perfectly identifying every user is not the goal. Some users may opt for a front end public alias (like whois protect), while submitting sufficient real private info to be verified. How this work depends on the organization users choose to prove identity. The governing board of 7, ultimately choose who to verify as real people. That is, if a governing system is chosen.
Previously, on the last page of ideas was written more or less:
Build-in a process for buying this currency using Bitcoin. There is a limited supply being created over time. As purchasing increases the koin remains available at a progressively more expensive price. This acts as a signal to the network that demand is up, and it creates more koin to curb the demand. To clarify, manipulating the price or a hype-buy becomes progressively more expensive, and results in more koin creation. This could be the biggest innovation, if it can be correctly figured. An idea is to base the formula partly on purchase per time, as well as price of currency.
So what happens is that when price goes up, buyers will expect that it is already in the process of correction through internal network operations. Expecting the price to go down, buyers will likely sell or wait to buy. In this way market forces also may push the price to level. If the price goes below level, buyer may choose to buy, expecting a general upward movement. With this koin that is created, part will be distributed to users as reward, maybe to earn something like interest. I suppose the value goes up when people find it useful, fair, clean, etc. Also, when the value is down, general world store prices may not change so much, which may have a leveling affect. Perhaps someone more intelligent and able in economics can explain if and how this might work.
There also is an idea of partially backing the koin with the bitcoin used to purchase it. Also the accumulated bitcoin might be distributed to certified 3rd parties to loan or micro-loan.