I agree with constitution idea, but I believe that me and you have quite different opinion what should be within that constitution…
When you still do not understand that 1 algo = 1 vote with non transparency as provided by the algo fund, I am quite worried that this hypercapitalism will enforced in this document and nothing will be able to change that in the future…
Please open your mind and try to find other solution where majority in form of people would have ability to vote against the proposals…
In many countries there is 2 levels of governance in place… The first one is parliament where people are elected with 1 person = 1 vote, and second body that must confirm all laws is eg 1 county = 1 vote … there is also third body usually called president who must also approve all laws on his own decision and if he does not approve it, the law goes back to be revoted by the lower bodies with higher quorum if they want to vote against him/her…
So basically there might be 1 algo = 1 vote as the first body, 1 kyc = 1 vote as second body, and 1 person selected somehow with combination of those two…
The fact that it’s a Proof of Stake and 1 Algo = 1 Vote simultaneously makes for easy game theory. Accumulate Aglos and Vote for self Interest.
At least in the beginning, all of the voting will be made by minority rule simply because of initial decision on distribution.
Adding layers also adds complexity. The voting system (even tho not a bad voting system of it’s time and overall for that matter) was built without the tech we have now. A lot of the layers that were made as checks and balances can be innovated on by reaching directly to voters is on each proposal.
Ps.
Another solution would be to create a governance coin that’s separate from the Algo and have each account hold 1 coin per proposal (if there are multiple proposals at a time)
Ps.
I would like to see a constitution initially simply to see the morals, values, and intent of the foundation.
not doable because rich person can create N accounts… Only if you could make limited number of coins and the transaction of them would require KYC verification… there might be auction system if somebody decides to sell his governance coin and perhaps the scarcity for these governance coins might lead to price increase in time as many more users will be participating, so it might be interesting for everyone to participate from the start
I would caution against relying too much on any commonly used models of governance, as many of them are unnecessarily undemocratic and/or inefficient.
For example the presidential (or semi-presidential) system is by definition a concentrated form of power, and I don’t see a need for something like that in algorand governance. Even if the president was somewhat democratically elected, there are better forms of representative democracy that reduce the concentration of power, and achieve more proportional representation of the voters.
Similarly the model of “1 county = 1 vote”, which sounds very similar to how the Senate works in the United States, is not worthy of duplicating in my opinion. (For historical reasons each State in the U.S. gets two Senators regardless of the State population. And by definition that too is highly undemocratic, as voters in the highly populous states have only a small fraction of the voting power of the smaller states. In practice such a system often leads to a gridlock where the smaller states veto the will of the majority, and prevent democracy and the “wisdom of the crowds” from functioning properly.)
In general though, I do agree that some “levels of government” can be a good thing. It just shouldn’t be an artificial construct for the sake of adding “levels”, but added for the sake of improving democracy. For example, in a representative democracy, a referendum can certainly be used for the most important decisions as a check on the power of the representatives.
If another level of governance was added to algorand, I would once again advocate for the square root method as a more democratic form of “1 algo = 1 vote”. And since that would require KYC, I think in the end this is actually quite close to what you were saying too. (Though on the other hand, if the square root method was adopted, then I would just argue for dropping the “1 algo = 1 vote” level altogether, as then that would become the less democratic level of governance, potentially causing a gridlock and preventing better decisions from being made.)
they might be risking the value of their stake in the decisions they make and the opportunity to use their algos since it’ll be committed for 3 months. Although if you have lots of algos committing for 3 months is nothing. They’re still experimenting, we’ll see. Now the assumption of not wanting to devalue your stake would have more weight if an individual’s whole worth is in algorand. If you have 10mil algo but your net-worth outside of the system is 10 bill then, devaluing your 10 million might not be bad if it helps against opponents or somehow in the long run
I agree that algo holders generally wouldn’t do anything to devalue their holdings.
And that’s the irresistible beauty of Pure Proof of Stake (and to some degree other forms of proof of stake too) taking advantage of that in the consensus protocol.
In terms of governance however, even if assuming that the 3-month commitment period achieves exactly what it is intended for, decisions that benefit the current algo holders the most are ones that increase the (short term) value of algo the most, which is not the same as what is most beneficial for the current and future health of the algo economy - including all potential algo users who have little use for deflating “currencies” that are mostly used for speculation, but need cryptocurrencies with more stable purchasing power for their daily business.