BTS Governance step 1: Basic stake polling

[toast]

I think the easiest way to do this would to have proxy delegates for an issue you want to stake poll.

So when you want to ask if e.g. dilution is good, then you make two delegates and put approval links in the post btsx:yes.dilution.proxyabc/approve and btsx:no.dilution.proxyabc/approve

Then it should be fairly easy to gauge stakeholder sentiment based on the votes the proxy delegates receive.

That's a pretty good technique but you can't distinguish between active and inactive stake. You can only count active supporters and compare support for alternative ways to do things.

[matt608]

I don't know how the VOTE daap will work, but isn't what your asking covered by its functions? 

Anti-constitution rant:
As for a constitution... I urge big changes to wait until voting is implemented.  'Constitution' is a very powerful word.  It's a founding document.  It's the core protocol of a society.  It means starting all over again.   In the spirit of not having more drastic changes, to create calmness and investor confidence, using such dramatic words like calling a temporary description of bitshares the 'constitution' needs to stop.

Once power is truly distributed among the stakeholders people can propose whatever they like and if a constitution is an idea that gains traction it may come into existence.

As of now, stakeholders have self-selected themselves into bitshares just fine, as well as into every other investment in the history of man kind without a constitution.  So I am against having one.  Constitutions are for governments, not corporations whether they a decentralised or not.  The only rule is there are no rules.  What is this 'constitution' if it doesn't have to be obeyed?  It's just a confusing document that will divide the community.  I say voting is for choosing delegates, keep it modular.  Please do not create some monolithic and highly controversial document to alienate the current investors.

People will describe bitshares in different ways.  There's no need for there to be the 'one true description'.  It's already an elegant system, more changes to the foundation are harmful - and creating a constitution is a foundational shift!  Delegates (and currently 3I) need a description to use for marketing, of course, but calling it a constitution implies it has supreme importance when in reality it's just sales copy.

Bitshares has an elegant system, what it needs is for the foundation to stop changing, it isn't adaptation, it's floundering.

[Rune]

I think the easiest way to do this would to have proxy delegates for an issue you want to stake poll.

So when you want to ask if e.g. dilution is good, then you make two delegates and put approval links in the post btsx:yes.dilution.proxyabc/approve and btsx:no.dilution.proxyabc/approve

Then it should be fairly easy to gauge stakeholder sentiment based on the votes the proxy delegates receive.

[toast]

There's not a quick and easy way to prevent people form being able to group balances together. There's some analysis you can't avoid just by the nature of stake-vote.

[roadscape]

I was thinking more like a simple web app + python script for now, something crude you could make fast

I'm interested. Sounds like a good learning project.

What's a good way to preserve anonymity when a signed vote is submitted? Other than not recording IP addresses..

[toast]

I was thinking more like a simple web app + python script for now, something crude you could make fast

[fluxer555]

Idea:

A Chrome extension that automatically scans any page from bitsharestalk.org for some standard-syntax issue_ID and pops up with a little thing on the side asking for your decision. This plugs into your RPC client and sends off the vote.

[toast]

The BTS blockchain is used to secure one consensus measure: percent ownership. The only purpose of a "constitution" is to define an initial social consensus to let stakeholders self-select into it. BTS ownership is already well-defined but its goals are not clear yet. Once a DAC is being traded, the will of its majority stakeholders can change and that will change the actions of the DAC. You can choose to still claim there's a constitution to help explain what the expected behavior of the DAC is based on its current shareholders, but the technology does not recognize it.

The blockchain can be used to document decisions about stakeholder intent that becomes impossible to muddle in the future. Once we get things figured out using off-chain systems that don't require core dev time, we can move more governance functions into the actual BTS client.

It would be good if a dev could do this:

1) Take daily BTS snapshots to obtain a map from address to amount
2) Make a curated list of issues. Request a signature on (issue_id, decision) for each balance from users. A utility to create these signatures in bulk in a standard format is needed.
3) Keep a running total of votes for each issue, allowing people to change the vote of a balance during the day.
4) Test actively, and start using it to make real decisions to force stakeholder engagement

Once this is in place we can start refining how the will of BTS leader+whale hivemind can be computed