Tl;dr we should create a community fund with the unclaimed stakes and this fund should be managed by everyone, not a centralized group of managers.
There are a large amount of unclaimed stakes and stakes taken from sock puppets. These stakes should not be distributed to or controlled by the dev team, but rather should be used for the benefit of all of NEM as decided by NEMtopia, the emergent digital entity consisting of all nemsters.
Let me explain.
Typical community funds will be managed by a team of trusted managers and distributed at their whim, possibly based on concensus derived via a voting mechanism. However, with distributed blockchain technology, there should no longer be any need for "managers" or any centralization. Everyone involved in NEM should be the managers and a rule-based system (NEM business rules) should be implemented that lets funds be automatically released upon certain events, such as the outcome of a community vote (on the blockchain).
Thus we need the following:
1. Method to propose a project to be funded
2. Method to ratify a proposal and bring it to vote
3. Method to vote on the proposal
4. Method for vetoing
5. Method to distribute funds automatically
So let's go through each of the required elements.
1. Method to propose a project to be funded
Without fund managers, there needs to be a decentralized, algorithmic way to propose projects and funding levels. On the blockchain, if we designate an address (perhaps nemesis block?) where people send unencrypted text messages to, then these messages can act as proposals. Messages should be in a standard, JSON-based format so that a title, description, payout address, and amount requested for funding can be entered. To prevent spamming, a transaction fee of 25,000 NEM will be required when sending a proposal.
2. Method to ratify a proposal and bring it to vote
We can probably expect a lot of spam/useless proposals to be sent, as it is relatively cheap to submit a proposal. Thus we should require a pre-vote where a proposal has to receive at least a minimum threshold of votes before bringing to a full vote. To prevent Sybil-style attacks, instead of using the number of votes, we will instead look at the cumulative importance of votes. That is, if account A ratifies the vote and A has an importance score of 1%, then that vote gets 1% added to it by account A. If the minimum threshold needed to start a vote is 1%, then account A's vote is enough to ratify the proposal and bring it to the next stage, which is public voting.
3. Method to vote on a proposal
Once a proposal has been ratified (consider ratification the "spam filter"), then a proposal can be brought before all of NEM to be voted on. As with ratification of proposals, it is not the number of votes that will count, but the cumulative importance. This is the only way to prevent Sybil-style attacks/vote spamming. Since importance changes over time for accounts, the importance of accounts at the instant a vote ends will be used. Rather than just having the majority win, winning a vote will require 70% of the voted importance and at least 5% of the importance in the NEM economy must vote for a vote to be valid (quorum).
4. Method for vetoing
In some situations, a veto might be called for. A vote can be annulled if twice the total importance that participated in the vote votes against a decided vote within 48 hours after the vote ends.
5. Method to distribute funds automatically
Voting will all be done on the blockchain in a way that is tied to a proposal. Thus it is trivial to send out funds from the community fund to the proposal's payout address upon a successful vote.
Regular Voting Schedule
It is expected that there will be many proposals over time that need to be decided on. Rather than doing voting ad hoc, it should be done regularly. Every week from Monday until Wednesday proposals will be collected for the next vote. Ratification of proposals will be done on Thursday. Voting will be done from Friday until the end of Sunday. Then the veto period is Monday and Tuesday. If a proposal has passed voting and is not vetoed, then funds will be distributed on Wednesday.
The Power of Us
Despite what the genocidal one-worlder illuminati-types will have you believe, people as individuals are extremely valuable because people are computation. The human mind uses only on the order of 1 Watt of power to do extremely complex data processing. No other information processor in the world is nearly as efficient as humans.
By bringing together many people into a decision-making process, more computational resources are available to tackle a given problem. Therefore, it can be expected that many nemsters thinking about and voting on proposals will result in better decisions than a small committee could make, given the differences in information processing abilities when combining many different of people with various abilities and expertise.
The Kingdom of NEM is Within
At a higher level, we can consider the decision-making entity composing all nemsters as an emergent digital entity, or country, if you will. For the sake of discussion here, I think we can refer to this as NEMtopia.
Rather than pushing globalization and destruction of local cultures for the centralization of power and money, NEMtopia is a stateless state. It is an emergent country that comes into existence when nemsters interact with each other, similar to how liquidity is an emergent property of many H20 molecules working together or cognition is an emergent property of many neurons interacting with each other. Thus NEmtopia allows people freedom to make decisions, as well as resources (the community fund) to help realize ideas to make the world a better place. This all comes without centralizing power in any small group of people or being forced to give up your local cultural identity or freedom.
Together let's make a better world–a nemtopian future!
The same method of voting can and should be used to decide other issues, post-launch.
This is really Great!!
i'm just really afraid of the number 5:
5. Method to distribute funds automatically
This can be really complicated.
Im not good in propose ideas like those we need here, as my brain is a messy place 
But for sure I'll try to help evaluat them.
This is really Great!!
i'm just really afraid of the number 5:
5. Method to distribute funds automatically
This can be really complicated.
Im not good in propose ideas like those we need here, as my brain is a messy place :)
But for sure I'll try to help evaluat them.
;)
We could use business rules which NEM is implementing. Business rules are smart contracts actually.
I suppose the best way to do Method 1 is to re-direct to a website where more details can be optionally presented.
The only thing absent in the above proposal is subjective discourse. But if people are creative, this can be elaborated or FAQs can be answered in the website. The final vote is binary, i.e., yes or no.
Maybe a couple more days should be allocated for FAQs.
I am not sure if a format of information dissemination should be included for streamlining and the level of detail should also be enough so that it will not jeopardize the IP the applicant has. It is a chicken and egg situation. Nobody should reveal everything in an open submission, but on the other hand, insufficient information will not allow anyone to make a proper decision. This is where the shortfall will be eventually.
I suppose the best way to do Method 1 is to re-direct to a website where more details can be optionally presented.
The only thing absent in the above proposal is subjective discourse. But if people are creative, this can be elaborated or FAQs can be answered in the website. The final vote is binary, i.e., yes or no.
Maybe a couple more days should be allocated for FAQs.
I am not sure if a format of information dissemination should be included for streamlining and the level of detail should also be enough so that it will not jeopardize the IP the applicant has. It is a chicken and egg situation. Nobody should reveal everything in an open submission, but on the other hand, insufficient information will not allow anyone to make a proper decision. This is where the shortfall will be eventually.
Just do it all on the blockchain. People can send proposals to a specified address and then the voting procedure is initiated.
People should work with the community before proposing a vote, so that people already know some of the details. If a stranger walks in and asks for a bunch of money without giving out details, I think it is obvious that the vote will fail in that case.
Many minds make quick work of uncertainty.
Forgot to specify a need for a quorum. It could be based on the number of nodes on the network, or the n-last active accounts. Having only "3 votes" on some important decision (because people don't wan't nor care to being involved) can have some drastic effects on the health of this proposal.
Forgot to specify a need for a quorum. It could be based on the number of nodes on the network, or the n-last active accounts. Having only "3 votes" on some important decision (because people don't wan't nor care to being involved) can have some drastic effects on the health of this proposal.
Yes, I addressed this in the line: "at least 5% of the importance in the NEM economy must vote for a vote to be valid."
So yes, there must be a quorum otherwise a vote will fail.
TBH, I have no idea if 5% is reasonable or not. Does anyone have a suggestion for this? I think that 5-10% might work well.
So basically every NEM staker becomes a future project reviewer. This idea sounds great.
I have some questions though. :
1. How long will it take to implement the voting mechanism into the blockchain?
2. Can't the POI score be manipulated by a group of people to push their projects through by performing a large number of transactions between their accounts? I am sure some people will try their best to exploit the system.
I suppose the best way to do Method 1 is to re-direct to a website where more details can be optionally presented.
The only thing absent in the above proposal is subjective discourse. But if people are creative, this can be elaborated or FAQs can be answered in the website. The final vote is binary, i.e., yes or no.
Maybe a couple more days should be allocated for FAQs.
I am not sure if a format of information dissemination should be included for streamlining and the level of detail should also be enough so that it will not jeopardize the IP the applicant has. It is a chicken and egg situation. Nobody should reveal everything in an open submission, but on the other hand, insufficient information will not allow anyone to make a proper decision. This is where the shortfall will be eventually.
Just do it all on the blockchain. People can send proposals to a specified address and then the voting procedure is initiated.
People should work with the community before proposing a vote, so that people already know some of the details. If a stranger walks in and asks for a bunch of money without giving out details, I think it is obvious that the vote will fail in that case.
Many minds make quick work of uncertainty.
Many minds can add to uncertainty, too. ;)
Forgot to specify a need for a quorum. It could be based on the number of nodes on the network, or the n-last active accounts. Having only "3 votes" on some important decision (because people don't wan't nor care to being involved) can have some drastic effects on the health of this proposal.
Yes, I addressed this in the line: "at least 5% of the importance in the NEM economy must vote for a vote to be valid."
So yes, there must be a quorum otherwise a vote will fail.
TBH, I have no idea if 5% is reasonable or not. Does anyone have a suggestion for this? I think that 5-10% might work well.
Pass consensus have indicated that between 60-80 will care to vote. This represents slightly less than 5% of the crowd. Assuming they have slightly more PoI because they care, this could add up to 5%. So, I think that is reasonable. We should set a lower number and then vote to up that variable in the Business rules. Easier to up than to down it.
So basically every NEM staker becomes a future project reviewer. This idea sounds great.
I have some questions though. ::)
1. How long will it take to implement the voting mechanism into the blockchain?
2. Can't the POI score be manipulated by a group of people to push their projects through by performing a large number of transactions between their accounts? I am sure some people will try their best to exploit the system.
How long - By V1
Exploit - Maybe PoI * Vote. Hence one needs to garner votes and PoI. Further, minimum PoI to be eligible to vote. Hence no socks.
Forgot to specify a need for a quorum. It could be based on the number of nodes on the network, or the n-last active accounts. Having only "3 votes" on some important decision (because people don't wan't nor care to being involved) can have some drastic effects on the health of this proposal.
Yes, I addressed this in the line: "at least 5% of the importance in the NEM economy must vote for a vote to be valid."
So yes, there must be a quorum otherwise a vote will fail.
TBH, I have no idea if 5% is reasonable or not. Does anyone have a suggestion for this? I think that 5-10% might work well.
Pass consensus have indicated that between 60-80 will care to vote. This represents slightly less than 5% of the crowd. Assuming they have slightly more PoI because they care, this could add up to 5%. So, I think that is reasonable. We should set a lower number and then vote to up that variable in the Business rules. Easier to up than to down it.
How about this, everytime when somebody votes, he get a little raise in PoI. In this way we value community paticipation.
The problem with that is that people will spam the system by creating many proposals, ratifying them, and voting. Voting would also be automated via bots and be random :/
So basically every NEM staker becomes a future project reviewer. This idea sounds great.
I have some questions though. ::)
1. How long will it take to implement the voting mechanism into the blockchain?
2. Can't the POI score be manipulated by a group of people to push their projects through by performing a large number of transactions between their accounts? I am sure some people will try their best to exploit the system.
PoI scores are used for consensus of the blockchain, so it people are working together to manipulate their score and they succeed, then we have far worse problems then people voting.
The automatic distribution of money will be done within a few months, but the voting system could be set up upon launch.
...
How about this, everytime when somebody votes, he get a little raise in PoI. In this way we value community paticipation.
The problem with that is that people will spam the system by creating many proposals, ratifying them, and voting. Voting would also be automated via bots and be random :/
So basically every NEM staker becomes a future project reviewer. This idea sounds great.
I have some questions though. ::)
1. How long will it take to implement the voting mechanism into the blockchain?
2. Can't the POI score be manipulated by a group of people to push their projects through by performing a large number of transactions between their accounts? I am sure some people will try their best to exploit the system.
PoI scores are used for consensus of the blockchain, ...
Not asking any formula or such, but
How is the NCC's importance% calculated?
Is there some POI score, which is increased ... and later is computed the %.
Average, percentage etc requires some kind of centralization. (yes, not yet studied the code :-\ )
...
How about this, everytime when somebody votes, he get a little raise in PoI. In this way we value community paticipation.
The problem with that is that people will spam the system by creating many proposals, ratifying them, and voting. Voting would also be automated via bots and be random :/
So basically every NEM staker becomes a future project reviewer. This idea sounds great.
I have some questions though. ::)
1. How long will it take to implement the voting mechanism into the blockchain?
2. Can't the POI score be manipulated by a group of people to push their projects through by performing a large number of transactions between their accounts? I am sure some people will try their best to exploit the system.
PoI scores are used for consensus of the blockchain, ...
Not asking any formula or such, but
How is the NCC's importance% calculated?
Is there some POI score, which is increased ... and later is computed the %.
Average, percentage etc requires some kind of centralization. (yes, not yet studied the code :-\ )
The POI score is the importance score in NEM's Proof-of-Importance. It is a similar idea to proof-of-stake, but it is more egalitarian because not only the account balance, but also the actions of people (e.g., transactions) are taken into account. So it is possible for someone with less NEM to have a higher importance than someone with much more NEM than them. However, since it is a consensus algorithm, the scores cannot be arbitrarily manipulated. Importance scores also all sum 1, so the percentage shown in NCC is your percentage out of 100% of the importance in the NEM economy.
...
Not asking any formula or such, but
How is the NCC's importance% calculated?
Is there some POI score, which is increased ... and later is computed the %.
Average, percentage etc requires some kind of centralization. (yes, not yet studied the code :-\ )
The POI score is the importance score in NEM's Proof-of-Importance. It is a similar idea to proof-of-stake, but it is more egalitarian because not only the account balance, but also the actions of people (e.g., transactions) are taken into account. So it is possible for someone with less NEM to have a higher importance than someone with much more NEM than them. However, since it is a consensus algorithm, the scores cannot be arbitrarily manipulated. Importance scores also all sum 1, so the percentage shown in NCC is your percentage out of 100% of the importance in the NEM economy.
consensus algorithm ... does that make it possible to calculate the percentage, though a node cannot "see" all the others in the network?
If this is doable and can be implemented to the entire asset exchange ( e.g. this would not be limited to NEMtopia but anyone can choose to use the same structure) it will be a huge boost for NEM!!!
I love this idea, but i guess it should be tested and thought through to make sure it can not be exploited.
However, there should be some additional off-blockchain information source to ensure overview. Otherwise no one will be interested after a while.
If a hyperlink could be added to the message (clickable would be great) that can be used to direct people to a source of information, this would be completely decentralised. A customised feature in a block explorer could then be programmed so that a good overview can exist and structurise the voting. It would be great if the message could be updated by sending another message with the same ID from the same NEM account. This way the requester could update the information/link.
Then you could have some indicator about the interest in a proposal (something similar to crowdfunding platforms but based on decentralised information)
I believe this could also be an added value for the assets.
...
Not asking any formula or such, but
How is the NCC's importance% calculated?
Is there some POI score, which is increased ... and later is computed the %.
Average, percentage etc requires some kind of centralization. (yes, not yet studied the code :-\ )
The POI score is the importance score in NEM's Proof-of-Importance. It is a similar idea to proof-of-stake, but it is more egalitarian because not only the account balance, but also the actions of people (e.g., transactions) are taken into account. So it is possible for someone with less NEM to have a higher importance than someone with much more NEM than them. However, since it is a consensus algorithm, the scores cannot be arbitrarily manipulated. Importance scores also all sum 1, so the percentage shown in NCC is your percentage out of 100% of the importance in the NEM economy.
consensus algorithm ... does that make it possible to calculate the percentage, though a node cannot "see" all the others in the network?
Yes, this is how the next harvester of a block is determined :)
If this is doable and can be implemented to the entire asset exchange ( e.g. this would not be limited to NEMtopia but anyone can choose to use the same structure) it will be a huge boost for NEM!!!
I love this idea, but i guess it should be tested and thought through to make sure it can not be exploited.
However, there should be some additional off-blockchain information source to ensure overview. Otherwise no one will be interested after a while.
If a hyperlink could be added to the message (clickable would be great) that can be used to direct people to a source of information, this would be completely decentralised. A customised feature in a block explorer could then be programmed so that a good overview can exist and structurise the voting. It would be great if the message could be updated by sending another message with the same ID from the same NEM account. This way the requester could update the information/link.
Then you could have some indicator about the interest in a proposal (something similar to crowdfunding platforms but based on decentralised information)
I believe this could also be an added value for the assets.
Yes, I agree that there should be a nice, user-friendly interface that reads the data from the blockchain. People can put hyperlinks in their text description without a problem.
In the future, this voting could also be extended to smart contracts.