This poll is created to receive feedback on the proposal described here,
in particular on the design of a Global Quorum: if the total stake of voters is > 50% the Voting Session is considered valid and we can proceed to fund distribution, otherwise an irrelevant fraction of xGov could decide for the majority, thus spoiling the concept of representation, therefore we declare the Voting session invalid.
- Yes, I support the definition of a Global Quorum of 50%.
- No, I don’t support the definition of a Global Quorum of 50%.
Imagine a situation—and this is not very different from what happened in Session 1—in which three “whale” non-voters invalidated a voting session for three thousand other community members who did vote. This would be a Very Bad Outcome and people would rightly be upset.
But why the hell someone is going to lose a lot of Algo (1.2M Algo) for invalidating a session?? It’s totally irrational!! By the way, we know for sure that the three whales couldn’t vote in Session 1 for technical reasons, not because they didn’t want to participate in the voting session.
@trekianov I understand the incentives structure and am not arguing with that. Edit: Furthermore, I think your argument strengthens the position that we don’t need a global quorum because there are already strong financial incentives for xGovs to vote and thus produce a valid session.
I acknowledge that this is a stake-based voting process, but we should also acknowledge that there are real people behind accounts.
I think it is important to avoid any situation in which some unanticipated issue (such as another technical problem with institutional custodians) on the part of a few participants can invalidate the votes of a few thousand other participants.
Just because we aren’t doing KYC to have a 1 person = 1 vote system doesn’t mean we should ignore the fact that certain outcomes would be a huge slap in the face of many of the chain’s most engaged users.
Note that I am not suggesting 1 account = 1 vote, because we all know that creates incentives for Sybil attacks.
I understand what you say, but still don’t agree, maybe I have too much trust in our economic way of thinking.