Show Posts
1
General Discussion / A proposal for a new look at the governance model
« on: August 27, 2020, 08:41:31 pm »
"Governance powered by engagement"
A.) Vision
I believe the best intentions and the best vision have people who actively build BitShares and people who actively use it. These people should have the greatest influence on how BitShares develops in the future. In other words, you must have "skin in the game" or "dirty hands". Outsiders won't have any influence on our platform until they naturally deserve it. Too often I have heard criticism and advice from people who don't even know how it works, or hardly ever use it.
Traders are basically customers, each company must listen to its customers and in order to grow.
Another group are those who build this "framework", that is programmers and gateways. We can measure the effectiveness of programmers by accepting their projects (i.e. accepting a vision for further development)
We can also measure the effectiveness of the gates by the number of customers they have (turnover on their tokens). I would exclude all the rest as an uninvolved or even dangerous group → CEX, ~ Justin Sun, Custodial Wallets
B.) We have the following problems to solve and we all know examples of where they occur:
1) Preventing CEX exchanges from voting, as well as other wallets holding other people's tokens
2) Hostile takeover by purchasing large amounts of tokens and attempting to forcefully change the existing community
3) buying votes
4) manipulating other people's opinions by providing incomplete information
C.) Proposal to solve the problem.
1) The right to vote gives a separate token, eg VOTE
2) The VOTE token's voice strength decreases over time. Parameters for discussion.
3) The VOTE token cannot be exchanged for other tokens or transferred to another account.
4.) 1 token = 1 vote
for all categories separately
- Witnesses
- Committee
- WP
- BSIP
D) The VOTE token is airdroped on the accounts in proportion to the costs incurred for only selected transaction fees.
a.) *trading fees
b.) fees incurred on WP if accepted by the community
c.) *issue asset (I mean the issue of eg GATEWAY.BTC in exchange for a deposit, to further strengthen the business, on tokens also approved by Committee)
d.) *feed price fee
e.) and maybe some other fee ....
*applies only to a specific list of tokens accepted by the committee
Notes on point "D"
Certainly, some fees, such as those incurred for a transfer, should be excluded because of the fact that CEX exchanges pay the most.
In addition, the remuneration received by people during the work on WP should be taken into account. It will certainly be difficult to calculate the appropriate factor, it should be high enough to appreciate this work, but also not to create hegemony. Some statistical analysis should be performed before such a conversion is applied.
E.) In fact, we do not want a lot of people to vote, we want people who have an opinion on a given topic or want to speak on a given matter to vote. Therefore, it could be done quite classically.
1.) New projects under WP are visible in the chain from the first day of the month and their maturity date is at the end of that month. There is a month for everyone to get to know the project and discuss it. There is no room for unexpected votes that no one knows about, as new WPs are always 1 day of the month.
2.) We always vote for or against.
3.) WP pass by most votes 50%
(or 2/3 for discussion)
4.) only LTM account can become proxy, as long as we want the proxy to still exist?
Notes on point "E"
I am not really sure if the proxy is a good idea. It kindles emotions of a political nature, and I don't know if it serves us well. We certainly want whoever is involved to vote, but not everyone has to. I guess this approach filters out a lot of random and manipulated votes and leaves only the ones that are really involved. Moreover, it does not exclude the impact on other people via social media who may want to imitate our votes and opinions, but it excludes the votes of people not involved in social media, or those with whom we do not have direct contact.
In this way, the number of voters will certainly be smaller, but for the same reason the discussion between them will certainly be of better quality.
A.) Vision
I believe the best intentions and the best vision have people who actively build BitShares and people who actively use it. These people should have the greatest influence on how BitShares develops in the future. In other words, you must have "skin in the game" or "dirty hands". Outsiders won't have any influence on our platform until they naturally deserve it. Too often I have heard criticism and advice from people who don't even know how it works, or hardly ever use it.
Traders are basically customers, each company must listen to its customers and in order to grow.
Another group are those who build this "framework", that is programmers and gateways. We can measure the effectiveness of programmers by accepting their projects (i.e. accepting a vision for further development)
We can also measure the effectiveness of the gates by the number of customers they have (turnover on their tokens). I would exclude all the rest as an uninvolved or even dangerous group → CEX, ~ Justin Sun, Custodial Wallets
B.) We have the following problems to solve and we all know examples of where they occur:
1) Preventing CEX exchanges from voting, as well as other wallets holding other people's tokens
2) Hostile takeover by purchasing large amounts of tokens and attempting to forcefully change the existing community
3) buying votes
4) manipulating other people's opinions by providing incomplete information
C.) Proposal to solve the problem.
1) The right to vote gives a separate token, eg VOTE
2) The VOTE token's voice strength decreases over time. Parameters for discussion.
3) The VOTE token cannot be exchanged for other tokens or transferred to another account.
4.) 1 token = 1 vote
for all categories separately
- Witnesses
- Committee
- WP
- BSIP
D) The VOTE token is airdroped on the accounts in proportion to the costs incurred for only selected transaction fees.
a.) *trading fees
b.) fees incurred on WP if accepted by the community
c.) *issue asset (I mean the issue of eg GATEWAY.BTC in exchange for a deposit, to further strengthen the business, on tokens also approved by Committee)
d.) *feed price fee
e.) and maybe some other fee ....
*applies only to a specific list of tokens accepted by the committee
Notes on point "D"
Certainly, some fees, such as those incurred for a transfer, should be excluded because of the fact that CEX exchanges pay the most.
In addition, the remuneration received by people during the work on WP should be taken into account. It will certainly be difficult to calculate the appropriate factor, it should be high enough to appreciate this work, but also not to create hegemony. Some statistical analysis should be performed before such a conversion is applied.
E.) In fact, we do not want a lot of people to vote, we want people who have an opinion on a given topic or want to speak on a given matter to vote. Therefore, it could be done quite classically.
1.) New projects under WP are visible in the chain from the first day of the month and their maturity date is at the end of that month. There is a month for everyone to get to know the project and discuss it. There is no room for unexpected votes that no one knows about, as new WPs are always 1 day of the month.
2.) We always vote for or against.
3.) WP pass by most votes 50%
(or 2/3 for discussion)4.) only LTM account can become proxy, as long as we want the proxy to still exist?
Notes on point "E"
I am not really sure if the proxy is a good idea. It kindles emotions of a political nature, and I don't know if it serves us well. We certainly want whoever is involved to vote, but not everyone has to. I guess this approach filters out a lot of random and manipulated votes and leaves only the ones that are really involved. Moreover, it does not exclude the impact on other people via social media who may want to imitate our votes and opinions, but it excludes the votes of people not involved in social media, or those with whom we do not have direct contact.
In this way, the number of voters will certainly be smaller, but for the same reason the discussion between them will certainly be of better quality.
WAT I do wrong?
