diff --git a/content/notes/blockchain-bursary.md b/content/notes/blockchain-bursary.md
index b179b5196..ca64a0366 100644
--- a/content/notes/blockchain-bursary.md
+++ b/content/notes/blockchain-bursary.md
@@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ tags:
 - [ ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_by_algorithm
 - [ ] https://coopahtroopa.mirror.xyz/_EDyn4cs9tDoOxNGZLfKL7JjLo5rGkkEfRa_a-6VEWw
 - [ ] https://101blockchains.com/permissioned-blockchain/
+- [ ] http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco55.htm?ref=hackernoon.com
+- [ ] https://medium.com/@Vlad_Zamfir/against-on-chain-governance-a4ceacd040ca
+- [ ] https://medium.com/@FEhrsam/blockchain-governance-programming-our-future-c3bfe30f2d74
 
 # Log
 - 14/11
diff --git a/content/notes/governance.md b/content/notes/governance.md
index 54a549269..d398036fe 100644
--- a/content/notes/governance.md
+++ b/content/notes/governance.md
@@ -31,6 +31,6 @@ users within the chain directly vote on decisions to be made, changes are then m
 
 some say this method is dangerous [^1] because it uses a one-vote-per-person system, and therefore is vulnerable to the [sybil-problem](notes/sybil-problem.md). To counteract this some use a one-vote-per-coin system via [proof-of-stake](proof-of-stake). However this means that people/orgs with more coin have more weight in their votes — this is at best a plutocracy
 
-blockchains are experimental software. they are evolving rapidly. There already exists good models for governing hard technical projects: the Linux Foundation and the IETF. demoracies are not suited for fast, 
+blockchains are experimental software. they are evolving rapidly. There already exists good models for governing hard technical projects: the Linux Foundation and the IETF. demoracies are not suited for fast, robust, change — they waste a lot of time and effort on campaigns, etc.
 
 [^1]: https://hackernoon.com/blockchains-should-not-be-democracies-14379e0e23ad
\ No newline at end of file