Voter Apathy - We need to provide incentive for people to vote

[matt608]

Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?

I wasn't aware BTS earns yield, I thought that was just on bitassets?  Bitasset holders definitely don't need to vote.

I'm not in favour of punishing with fines people for not voting.  BTS holders just need to be able to be able to easily vote someone out if they are attacking the network and have the rest automated as much as possible.  I don't know why delegates can't just be ranked algorithmically with using the fields on bitsharesblocks.com/delegates such as

 - feed frequency
 - number of active feeds
 - reliability
 - frequency of updates
 - time running as delegate (they'd become more trusted over time, would be a v important factor to make attacks more expensive)

There could be an algorithmically produced top 101 slate which could be auto-voted on (i.e. not voted on) and give its effect a weighting of say 50/50 vs the active votes of the BTS holders.  So if there is 15% active stake, the algorithmically defined stake gets 15% voting power automatically taken from the inactive stake, doubling the active stake (while decreasing the voters power by half).  Let an algorithm take some of the load. 

Or at the very least an algorithm could serve as a back up, so that if the active stake falls below a certain level, the algorithm could step in and do the voting on the BTS holders' behalf.  The only way to trick the algorithm would be to run a fleet of very reliable delegates for a long period.... which might end up being cheaper than just buying up the BTS... not sure.

[Shentist]

earlier you suggested for none voters to pay 10 times the fees for transaction. i would support this. we need insentives and punishment measures.

could we not pay this higher fees to the voters as a kind of dividend?

i am for forcing to vote, i think i will take the risk for not informed votes to the risk of a cheap 51% attack with just buying 8-9 % of our marketcap.

[fuzzy]

We need to figure out a way to provide incentive for shareholders to vote. The biggest issue I see is with 13.06% of the money supply, someone could perform a 51% attack. This is obviously much less ideal than 51% of the money supply. There are a lot of other issues pertaining to voter apathy as well. No offense to those that have tried organizing these things, but I'm not talking about some silly "election week", campaigning, or mumble hangouts. People need incentive to vote or else they never will. We need to figure out a way that shareholders can be paid to vote. IE. a percentage of fees.. a percentage of dilution.. a little extra dilution.. a delegate... somehow, some way... people need incentive to vote. The current system is not working, the delegate with the most votes has 13.06%. How is this OK with everyone??!?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11416.0

Please consider my points here and offer your own.  I personally think this model is fine... and Dan has even spoken to this himself as a potential means of getting delegates voted in.  You are right, though.  We do need this. 

[donkeypong]

My proposition is thus.... would it be feasible to have a splash page where all possible advantageous delegate features could be listed in the form of 'checkbox' type selection criteria. By this manner a sharehodler community member may simply select the features that best represent his or her wishes. Of course, the selections can be moified by individual at any time they choose to do so. They would select and forget. Perhaps reviewing their selections to reflect new features presented.
On the other side of the ledger, the delegate would select the features that he or she would adopt as part of their basket of goodies. When married together we would have 101 delegates that represent the most requested features
I could go on but I know how smart you guys are and if this is a road worth investigating then my contribution here is complete 

I like this idea too. I don't really care how it is implemented, but voter apathy needs to be figured out. Saying it will probably work itself out over time does not work for me. Will we still be saying "it will work itself out over time" years from now? Let's work it out now... any security vulnerabilities should be taken seriously and taken care of if it is under our control to plug them. Voter apathy I feel like is a security vulnerability that we can plug. For all we know, one centralized exchange could have 14% of the money supply.. we could literally be one hack away from a possible attack. I realize we would fork and burn their stake, but it would be a serious black eye for Bitshares and DPoS if someone was able to attack it even in the slightest bit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with 14% of the money supply you could gain complete control of the network by not accepting transactions that vote the attacking delegates out. In that case we would need to fork, roll back the block chain, and burn the attacking stake.

House's suggestion works for me. Apathy is a reality we face, so it must be addressed.

If there are any defaults, I just want to screen out delegates who consistently miss blocks and/or fail to update.

[CoinHoarder]

My proposition is thus.... would it be feasible to have a splash page where all possible advantageous delegate features could be listed in the form of 'checkbox' type selection criteria. By this manner a sharehodler community member may simply select the features that best represent his or her wishes. Of course, the selections can be moified by individual at any time they choose to do so. They would select and forget. Perhaps reviewing their selections to reflect new features presented.
On the other side of the ledger, the delegate would select the features that he or she would adopt as part of their basket of goodies. When married together we would have 101 delegates that represent the most requested features
I could go on but I know how smart you guys are and if this is a road worth investigating then my contribution here is complete 

I like this idea too. I don't really care how it is implemented, but voter apathy needs to be figured out. Saying it will probably work itself out over time does not work for me. Will we still be saying "it will work itself out over time" years from now? Let's work it out now... any security vulnerabilities should be taken seriously and taken care of if it is under our control to plug them. Voter apathy I feel like is a security vulnerability that we can plug. For all we know, one centralized exchange could have 14% of the money supply.. we could literally be one hack away from a possible attack. I realize we would fork and burn their stake, but it would be a serious black eye for Bitshares and DPoS if someone was able to attack it even in the slightest bit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with 14% of the money supply you could gain complete control of the network by not accepting transactions that vote the attacking delegates out. In that case we would need to fork, roll back the block chain, and burn the attacking stake.

[House]

I don't know how many times i've opened my wallet and seen the message  about voting. I have a quick look at the delegate list of names and my eyes just glaze over unless I see a name I recognize. For all intents and purposes, let me just say it's a lot of times.

I ask myself "who are these people and what are they representing for my benefit"

Even if I select a name and go to a great looking page with a few details about pay rate etc. I still know nothing of the delegates intentions, abilities, prospects, relationship to other delegates .....

Surely a one line elevator pitch could be well placed here

Now even if we managed to clarify the information about our great delegates and their honorable intentions and populate their splash page with the content... who in their right mind is gonna take the time to sift through them all and use their maximum voting capacity of 101 selections.

Has anyone actually hand selected and consciously voted for their preferred 101 delegate team?

My proposition is thus.... would it be feasible to have a splash page where all possible advantageous delegate features could be listed in the form of 'checkbox' type selection criteria. By this manner a sharehodler community member may simply select the features that best represent his or her wishes. Of course, the selections can be moified by individual at any time they choose to do so. They would select and forget. Perhaps reviewing their selections to reflect new features presented.
On the other side of the ledger, the delegate would select the features that he or she would adopt as part of their basket of goodies. When married together we would have 101 delegates that represent the most requested features
I could go on but I know how smart you guys are and if this is a road worth investigating then my contribution here is complete 

[hpenvy]

Ok... new train of thought as to making it easier to vote. Assume someone is not voting for a full slate or any delegates. Feel free to suggest changes to this.. these are just suggestions. Let's call it the "voting wizard".

Whenever the client launches it checks to see if they are voting a full slate of delegates.

If not, a screen pops up saying "You are not voting for a full slate of delegates, would you like to vote now?"

Click no... Nothing happens (Or see optional below)

Click yes... it brings you to the voting panel which automates the voting process like the installation of software. With the following steps:

1. "Would you like to pick delegates manually or choose from a slate of delegates?"

1a. If manually it goes to a screen similar to the current delegate panel with only one difference. Delegates are allowed to publish a short description of what their campaign is for.. Similar to publishing their version or price feeds. This way you never have need to leave the client to evaluate delegates.

1b. If they choose to vote for a slate, then it goes to a slate listing screen. It should show who published the slate and allow for a field to be published that shows what their criteria is for picking delegates. Allow stakeholders to vote for which slates are most popular and order them from most popular to least popular. That way those that actually vote can choose which slate should be the default.

Optional: I like the idea someone mentioned... of providing incentive to make people vote. When someone goes to send a transaction and they aren't voting for a full slate.. charge them 10x the normal transaction fee. Ask them if they'd like to vote to bypass the bigger fee by voting, if yes send them to the "voting wizard". Have a way for delegates to tell if someone is voting or not, if they are not and if they don't pay the larger fee, then do not include their transactions into blocks.

OK, now we're talking. I think you're on the right track with 1,1a,1b!  As for the optional, I'm not sure.

[starspirit]

Ok... new train of thought as to making it easier to vote. Assume someone is not voting for a full slate or any delegates. Feel free to suggest changes to this.. these are just suggestions. Let's call it the "voting wizard".

Whenever the client launches it checks to see if they are voting a full slate of delegates.

If not, a screen pops up saying "You are not voting for a full slate of delegates, would you like to vote now?"

Click no... Nothing happens

Click yes... it brings you to the voting panel which automates the voting process like the installation of software. With the following steps:

1. "Would you like to pick delegates manually or choose from a slate of delegates?"

1a. If manually it goes to a screen similar to the current delegate panel with only one difference. Delegates are allowed to publish a short description of what their campaign is for.. Similar to publishing their version or price feeds. This way you never need to leave the client.

1b. If they choose to vote for a slate, then it goes to a slate listing screen. It should show who published the slate and allow for a field to be published that shows what their criteria is for picking delegates. Allow stakeholders to vote for which slates are most popular and order them from most pupil are to least popular. That way those that actually vote can choose which slate should be the default.

Optional: I like the idea someone mentioned... of providing incentive to make people vote. When someone goes to send a transaction and they aren't voting for a full slate.. charge them 10x the normal transaction fee. Ask them if they'd like to vote to bypass the bigger fee by voting, if yes send them to the "voting wizard". Have a way for delegates to tell if someone is voting or not, if they are not and if they don't pay the larger fee, then do not include their transactions into blocks.

Better line of thinking, look for ways to make participation easier and dependent on how much time or information a voter has to contribute.
Still don't like the incentive though. There is no way to prove a person is informed  - they can pick a random slate to avoid the fee.

[CoinHoarder]

Ok... new train of thought as to making it easier to vote. Assume someone is not voting for a full slate or any delegates. Feel free to suggest changes to this.. these are just suggestions. Let's call it the "voting wizard".

Whenever the client launches it checks to see if they are voting a full slate of delegates.

If not, a screen pops up saying "You are not voting for a full slate of delegates, would you like to vote now?"

Click no... Nothing happens (Or see optional below)

Click yes... it brings you to the voting panel which automates the voting process like the installation of software. With the following steps:

1. "Would you like to pick delegates manually or choose from a slate of delegates?"

1a. If manually it goes to a screen similar to the current delegate panel with only one difference. Delegates are allowed to publish a short description of what their campaign is for.. Similar to publishing their version or price feeds. This way you never have need to leave the client to evaluate delegates.

1b. If they choose to vote for a slate, then it goes to a slate listing screen. It should show who published the slate and allow for a field to be published that shows what their criteria is for picking delegates. Allow stakeholders to vote for which slates are most popular and order them from most popular to least popular. That way those that actually vote can choose which slate should be the default.

Optional: I like the idea someone mentioned... of enforcing a penalty to make people vote. When someone goes to send a transaction and they aren't voting for a full slate.. charge them 10x the normal transaction fee. Ask them if they'd like to vote to bypass the bigger fee by voting, if yes send them to the "voting wizard". Have a way for delegates to tell if someone is voting or not, if they are not and if they don't pay the larger fee, then do not include their transactions into blocks.

[hpenvy]

How does forcing an uninformed voter to make an uninformed vote produce any value for anyone?

Imagine if US citizens were taxed at a higher rate if they elected not to vote; the general population would be orders of magnitude more informed on the political process.

For all that's crypto-holy, no no no no. The general population might watch a few more attack ads, they might find new ways to vote for candidates that limit my freedom because they're unable to comprehend the complexities of different platforms. While I have 0 faith in US national elections, I see the principle of informed voters at local city hall meetings. If you don't understand the issues, please save your vote.

[starspirit]

How does forcing an uninformed voter to make an uninformed vote produce any value for anyone?

The idea would be to force the uniformed to become informed, or at minimum more informed than they would otherwise be.

Imagine if US citizens were taxed at a higher rate if they elected not to vote; the general population would be orders of magnitude more informed on the political process.

Really, do folks have a right to the benefits of a democratic society if they cannot be bothered to vote?

Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?

"Hey, use the system to transfer and store value. But if you want the benefits (yield) you need to participate (vote)."

You can't force people to become more informed. They can just vote uninformed to avoid the penalty, or collect any incentive provided. Still no value.

[oldman]

How does forcing an uninformed voter to make an uninformed vote produce any value for anyone?

The idea would be to force the uniformed to become informed, or at minimum more informed than they would otherwise be.

Imagine if US citizens were taxed at a higher rate if they elected not to vote; the general population would be orders of magnitude more informed on the political process.

Really, do folks have a right to the benefits of a democratic society if they cannot be bothered to vote?

Do BTS shareholders have a right to yield if they cannot be bothered to vote?

"Hey, use the system to transfer and store value. But if you want the benefits (yield) you need to participate (vote)."

People use BTC right now without voting and receive no yield.

Is it so unreasonable to say "Using BTS gives you all the benefits of BTC and then some. In addition, if you want to take the time, you can vote and be compensated by earning yield."

I think the mindset needs to change from 'yield is an entitlement' to 'yield is a privilege that is earned'.

[Stan]

How does forcing an uninformed voter to make an uninformed vote produce any value for anyone?

[oldman]

I've addressed this issue before; voter apathy will be a serious liability when BTS scales.

The only way to do this properly is to withhold/autoescrow yield until the user votes.

Users have full functionality but cannot access their yield until they participate in the election process.

The autoescrow kicks in once a year, say Jan 1st.

The user is notified it is election day; until they vote with their full stake all yield accrued from Jan 1st forward will be held in escrow.

User makes a few clicks, perhaps picks a slate, and yield is released.

I feel strongly there is no positive incentive that can effectively counteract apathy; there has to be a consequence that is mild but annoying enough to deal with.

[FreeTrade]

what about to pay the top x slate publishers?

Slate publishers (directors) should be paid. I'm in favour of directors setting their own pay rate as delegates.