In Read Write Own, Dixon distinguishes amendable core code from immutable-core designs and describes separate governance houses as a possible check on self-interested tokenholder decisions.

groundsUntitled source

The approach resembles the bicameral systems used by national governments, such as the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. In a blockchain network, one house might consist of respected community members chosen by a foundation, while the other might consist of token holders. Sometimes the foundation house can veto proposals made by the token house if it deems the proposals overly self-interested. Other times, certain responsibilities, such as technical and financial decisions, are split across houses. Blockchain networks vary in how much they can be modified through governance. At one extreme are networks where any participant can propose changes to core network code. Users submit proposals on discussion forums, either as informal proposals or as working code. Proposals with enough support go to a token holder vote. If a proposal passes, the network implements the updates automatically. No further action is necessary. At the other extreme are networks where the token holders don't have any control over core network code. Once the software is uploaded to a blockchain, that's it. It's immutable. The code just runs on autopilot. This means new versions of the software are released as entirely new networks, coexisting with older versions that remain indefinitely active.