We need to reassess Goverance

I think this topic is timely to Algorand

Moving Beyond Coin Voting Governance

3 Likes

Using the fourth root system makes good sense to me. This would result in:

1A equals 1 vote
10A equals 3 votes
1,000A equals 5 votes
1,000,000A equals 31 votes
1,000,000,000A equals 177 votes

Much more fair.

1 Like

Wow - that was an amazing read! (I’ve never seen it before even though it’s from 2021.)

I presume this was written by Vitalik Buterin (based on the domain name, as there was no name on the post itself)? If so, I need to start reading more of his writings, as these ideas are excellent and highly applicable to all blockchains, including Algorand.

This doesn’t help. “Big wallets” can create multiple accounts to gain voting power.

2 Likes

Not really. You’d have to create way to many wallets. That’s why the power function.

It’s true that splitting a wallet into 1000 wallets with an off-the-shelf software wallet such as Pera Wallet would be extremely painful.

However, it should be quite easy to develop a software splitting a 1M Algo wallet into 1000 wallets in a way that is transparent for the user. There is a little cost in term of transaction fees, but it’s completely negligible.
In term of security, it is very easy to derive all the keys of the 1000 wallets from a single key. So there is no need to store more keys.

It really mostly is just a question of providing the right UI to the right cryptographic operations. If you have hundreds of millions of Algos and really want to have as many votes as possible, the cost of such a software change is most likely less than your governance rewards… (and if the governance rewards are also proportional to the number of votes, the use of such a software pays for itself and bring more money!)

5 Likes

Tough problem, for sure. I assume many of you at the Algorand Foundation have given this issue a lot of thought. Do you foresee any promising solutions (besides KYC)? Or do you think it’s best to keep it simple, both technically and philosophically, at 1 ALGO = 1 vote?

Just spit-balling here, but this seems like the perfect use case for a decentralized digital identity solution. What if the Foundation or, in the future, a community-driven DAO, had the authority to mint non-tradeable (“soul-bound”) NFTs whose sole purpose is to be a gatekeeper to Governance. If you (don’t) have the NFT in your Algo wallet, you can (not) participate in Governance. The cost of the NFT could be formulaically determined based on the age and transaction history of the wallet such that older, more active wallets pay a lower fee (i.e., virtually free) to acquire the Governance NFT than new wallets with virtually no transaction history (i.e., a fee high enough to sufficiently deter an abusive amount of wallet splitting). There could even be community-led rules to define bot/automated behavior and exclude such wallets entirely, though I could see that being problematic for edge cases and governance voting via defi/liquid staking protocols.

1 Like

You can easily do it with KMD, or as you wrote a custom scripts. Nobody would do it with a Pera Wallet.

1 Like

yeah, it’s trivial to conduct this.