Actually, after writing the example above, I do realize that the square root method does not work on top of “1 algo = 1 vote” and only works with “1 person = 1 vote”.
Reason being that the scale in “1 algo = 1 vote” is artificial, and we could have just as easily defined it as “10 algos = 1 vote”, but by doing so, the voting weights from the square root method would be completely different from square root method applied to “1 algo = 1 vote”.
And I do not have a method to fairly decide what the scale of “x algos = 1 vote” should be. And without KYC, I don’t know how to solve the problem.
I would clarify that the specific proposal I shared in this thread would not be as vulnerable to “wallet splitting”, because the square root would only be applied to the number of delegated votes given to algorand foundation, but not to the number of algos the wallet already has.
This does not however solve the whales issue.
This way I understand that we can do sqrt on the foundation recomendation votes, and Algorand foundation, please consider it…
While it is absolutely important to consider how to avoid the possibility of a small group of whales colluding to ensure they get the rewards, I strongly disagree with the idea that the foundation, or anyone, should be doing KYC for voting as you suggest. It’s a privacy issue, it’s a huge burden on the foundation, it will hit investors in different regions were hard, and it open up for the possibility of a “gatekeeper” blocking specific people. I want the foundation and inc to be given less power (and have their contributions for Algorand to go through the same pipeline as any other group of community devs), not more.
Regarding delegation, I agree with it actually. I think it would see a lot more engagement from the Algo held by an average investor, which ensures that the power of whales are contained. I have come to believe, based on what Keli wrote in the discord channel, that the whales are a very diverse group of entities with different aims/priorities, such that normal members of the Algorand community could accumulate enough delegate votes to be able to have a big impact. My hope is that voting as a whole could maybe become its own “Layer 1 primitive” somehow, so it is not just a transaction note field. Delegation could thus become an account-level feature, allowing us to handle double-voting with delegation the same way we deal with double-spending.
The KYC part is purly optional on decision of the organization who runs it… the paper was intended to describe the governance problem in more generic terms, so that any other blockchain can benefit from it… In my opinion the plural voting system is more beneficial because it does not lead to hypercapitalism, but I dont currently see it as a way for Algorand as the rich guys already made their decision for doing it one algo one vote… Nevertheless it may be used also in these conditions, so by implementing this the governance or any questions asked might be much more effecient than using any other governance method… Note, I still do not know the algorand technical plans for governance as it has not been published (as far as I know), but might affect our products such as AWallet…
Btw, I dont think that algorand should try to invent new transaction type for the governance… everything may be achieved with standard basic transactions
Also regarding the whales, in my opinion they are not very diverse group of entities… Most of them are the relay node runners - early backers who has direct links to foundation or perhaps to silvio. Note that I have not found the post of Keli in discord, but the basics of economy is that it leads to monopoly… The richer wants to become more richer and governments has tools to prevent the monopoly… There are no such tools in blockchain as it is quite anonymous and there is no way of reverting the tx…
It is fully decentralized. Anybody can submit transactions with specified format to blockchain, anybody can vote, anybody can see all information for auditing of the questions…
Please report here the bugs, or suggestions for improvement.
Splitting the voting weight depends on if there are more than 1 governors and you decide to vote 3 governors from 1 vote
And talking about authenticity of making the system check real identity like passport etc that is utterly nonsense.
Theoretically a system cannot check that Because there are more than 20 countries and many countries don’t even have proper identification of an individual and many don’t have Identity itself
The system should be designing for those under privileged people in Africa etc to help them get identity and the same time they are able to vote .
The only system is using your face and generating algorithm to get that voted for particular amount of time let’s say 1- 3 months else I don’t see anything else than voting your identity is your personal asset
What I think is algorand should check only if the account has atleast 1 algo to vote and getting the system to recognise each Identity through cryptographic codes else how in the world you are suppose to vote … everything else is nonsense and waste of time.
And for sure this is not an easy pie as generating crappy codes am sure Silvio understands this better and only a genius can solve such puzzles…
Cuz your face can look so different each time recognising a face in a format to generate a certificate temporary to vote is going to be an holy gail of governance… If Silvio is reading my post I know he can do it
there is approx 200 countries in the world. I agree we must be prepared for those countries that does not have proper electronic identification such as the US, or some african countries.
The proposed system as far as I understand allows you to split your vote between for example 3 other people according to the trust you have towards them and more specifically in categories, which can lead to better decision making.
i agree that there may be some biometric authentication in place for those who are not from the countries where you cannot get proper government electronic id… lets start the token, raise some funds, do the research and implement it
This one will be again their self presentation how they are good, how they listen to the community but I am 100% sure they will not even mention the proposed voting system by Scholts as it seems to be better than they have made …
if they would get to comparision in form of costs of running the governance, the wisdom index on how much community they involve in the decision making or the effeciency or speed how fast it allows to make the decisions, they would certainly loose…
the proposed system is just few text messages in the blockchain, and he implemented the gui for it in 5 days I think, while the algorand is secretly working on their governance for months… so sad
Also I dont think they will mention that the algorand distribution is so screwed and very small group of people owns more than 50% of coins
The voting system i have implemented does not interpret the result…
But person can do from it the 1 vote = 1 coin governance
as well as
1 vote = 1 confirmed person
Or the combination…
Technically it does not even talk if something passes at 50% or 75% or 90%… it is just simple note put to the network, and the way how to calculate from it the sum of votes
Noone is storing any private data to the blockchain… Not even in the case of person global unique id… This id is not stored to the blockchain… The verified person selects the account from where he wants to do the decisions, and his old account is removed and new account is added to the trusted list of the questioner.
Regarding the bot, i do not care if the verified person uses a bot to vote or not… It is his account, he is responsible for his private key. He can change his account any time.
If the AI will own the account in the future, it can vote in the system of 1 coin = 1 vote… Until the decision will be made on how to approve AI as a personality…
Frontline (on PBS) had an excellent episode on the questionable nature of the forensic sciences in general. There’s a section that deals with the weakness of fingerprints specifically starting at 7:18. Basically, there is at least one documented case of fingerprints NOT being unique. And if it’s true once…
Even right now when you have to unlock your algorand wallet you are using your fingerprint
So it’s not that bad to use an optional method as authentication such as fingerprint or face scanner
