Governance - proposal for technical realisation for voting

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 will rephrase your statement then…

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…

1 Like

I have written the “Paper” on this matter… Algorand foundation management, please read 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.

1 Like

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…