Great idea(s)! I am really impressed.
One question: I understand that it is not possible to reward people for a vote because of people who will exploit the system.
But will a vote cost fees?
Great idea(s)! I am really impressed.
One question: I understand that it is not possible to reward people for a vote because of people who will exploit the system.
But will a vote cost fees?
As this is a transaction, it should cost fees. There is not much choice really because if you don't people will just vote carelessly and/or simply spam for the heck of it. If you do, then there may be less votes. Difficult!
Hmmm.
Maybe an automatic reward of the fees out of a fund if the vote was successful?
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.
Hmm, I have no experience with the concept of smart contracts. Can anyone give me some practical examples how this could work?
Just to see where this could go...
About the fees and voting:
What would be the incentive for anyone to vote if this only cost NEM ?
I suppose this is something that should be dealt with. I know how difficult it is to get people to commit to something (long term) that may not cost alot of time/effort. But if you do not create some incentive for people to give input, little cooperation can be expected.
It's sad, but I guess thats just a human factor...
Hmmm.
Maybe an automatic reward of the fees out of a fund if the vote was successful?
Yes, that is what I am proposing.
Hmmm.
Maybe an automatic reward of the fees out of a fund if the vote was successful?
Yes, that is what I am proposing.
That doesn't stop people from irresponsibly spamming knowing they will get paid later.
Hmmm.
Maybe an automatic reward of the fees out of a fund if the vote was successful?
Yes, that is what I am proposing.
That doesn't stop people from irresponsibly spamming knowing they will get paid later.
Not sure what the relationship is to the other posts :)
The 25,000 NEM fee for proposing should help reduce spamming, as well as weighting votes by importance scores.
Hmmm.
Maybe an automatic reward of the fees out of a fund if the vote was successful?
Yes, that is what I am proposing.
That doesn't stop people from irresponsibly spamming knowing they will get paid later.
Not sure what the relationship is to the other posts :)
The 25,000 NEM fee for proposing should help reduce spamming, as well as weighting votes by importance scores.
The other posts is talking about being paid for voting. And if it is free, people will just spam. Successful or not, rightly or wrongly.
It won't help reduce spamming. Spamming is therefore free. If vote is successful, 25K comes from the fund because the fund is going to pay to the promoter. But if the vote is not successful, it will come from the proposer. Hence, either party will support the spam. It is ok. I guess it is the best solution so far.
Assuming a vote is 1NEM fee. Hence the cost of each vote is 2 NEM.
Is each vote 1 NEM in fee? Need to check the formula again. If it is then 25K is reasonable. We have a set limit of 12.5K votes. This is sufficient.
@Rockethead:
What I meant (and makoto as well?) was that a vote costs a fee (not sure how much). And that the people who voted will get a reward only if the vote was successfull (meaning that enough people voted yes and the proposal is accepted).
Like this people can't know if their vote is free or not, so most of them will only vote if they really like the proposal (of course also in hope that the vote will be free).
Edit:
It could be even like this:
The voting fees could fill up the fund if a proposal was not accepted.
@Rockethead:
What I meant (and makoto as well?) was that a vote costs a fee (not sure how much). And that the people who voted will get a reward only if the vote was successfull (meaning that enough people voted yes and the proposal is accepted).
Like this people can't know if their vote is free or not, so most of them will only vote if they really like the proposal (of course also in hope that the vote will be free).
Edit:
It could be even like this:
The voting fees could fill up the fund if a proposal was not accepted.
So what you are saying is don't vote if you don't like the proposal, vote if you like it. As long as it reaches => 5% then the project is considered approved. Then we won't get to know the truth because those who don't vote and those who are against it will be in the same category, i.e., not voting.
Not so clean. I think the proposal by @Makoto is cleaner. One should vote and no matter what, the voting person will be reimbursed, either by the fund (successful) or by the promoter (unsuccessful).
what about a two round voting…
eg… all projects that get listed get put into a big list and users upvote projects(no down voting as that is always abused). once a project gets enough upvotes it moves into the second, narrowed down group, where people can then vote for those and only x projects allowed in the second stage list at any given time. once a project in the second stage gets funding or rejected it opens up a space for the project with the highest number of upvotes from the first stage. projects have x blocks time limit to be awarded funding and if funding is not awarded by then they are rejected and dropped from the second stage list. users get one vote per list per week or something. this way only serious projects that have a chance of being funded will move into the second round and if they do not get funding with in a reasonable amount of time they are considered rejected.
in order for users to vote they must have atleast 25% of their nem vested(in their account for ~one week) and once an account has voted they must wait 1 weeks worth of blocks to vote again. ie. new accounts cant vote so moving funds around doesnt work to play the system. even if they do, by the time they can vote they would have been awarded a new vote to the old account.
what about a two round voting..
eg.. all projects that get listed get put into a big list and users upvote projects(no down voting as that is always abused). once a project gets enough upvotes it moves into the second, narrowed down group, where people can then vote for those and only x projects allowed in the second stage list at any given time. once a project in the second stage gets funding or rejected it opens up a space for the project with the highest number of upvotes from the first stage. projects have x blocks time limit to be awarded funding and if funding is not awarded by then they are rejected and dropped from the second stage list. users get one vote per list per week or something. this way only serious projects that have a chance of being funded will move into the second round and if they do not get funding with in a reasonable amount of time they are considered rejected.
in order for users to vote they must have atleast 25% of their nem vested(in their account for ~one week) and once an account has voted they must wait 1 weeks worth of blocks to vote again. ie. new accounts cant vote so moving funds around doesnt work to play the system. even if they do, by the time they can vote they would have been awarded a new vote to the old account.
Yes down votes could be abused because the promoter may not be liked but the project is fantastic. It is most likely the promoter is a known person in the community, famous or infamous.
Most people will not bother to cast any vote if it means to lose money for voting. What about minimum PoI score to vote?
So what you are saying is don't vote if you don't like the proposal, vote if you like it. As long as it reaches => 5% then the project is considered approved. Then we won't get to know the truth because those who don't vote and those who are against it will be in the same category, i.e., not voting.
Ok right, what I wrote was not thought through all the way.
Let me try again:
A vote costs a fee, so people will only vote if the proposal seems important for them. It can be important for them to vote "no" (because they really don't want the proposal to be accepted) or it can be important for them to vote "yes" (because they really want the proposal to be accepted).
-> So maybe it would be a solution to reward the "yes" votes in case the proposal is accepted and to reward the "no" votes if the proposal is not accepted?
So what you are saying is don't vote if you don't like the proposal, vote if you like it. As long as it reaches => 5% then the project is considered approved. Then we won't get to know the truth because those who don't vote and those who are against it will be in the same category, i.e., not voting.
Ok right, what I wrote was not thought through all the way.
Let me try again:
A vote costs a fee, so people will only vote if the proposal seems important for them. It can be important for them to vote "no" (because they really don't want the proposal to be accepted) or it can be important for them to vote "yes" (because they really want the proposal to be accepted).
-> So maybe it would be a solution to reward the "yes" votes in case the proposal is accepted and to reward the "no" votes if the proposal is not accepted?
Sounds plausible and workable. ;)
The important thing to me is that there is some kind of open, transparent, and democratic method for how the funds are spent.
I have yet to ever hear of a method to achieve these goals that is perfect and prone from some kind of abuse in one way or another, but open, transparent, and democratic seems to be a lot better than closed, secret and centralized.
The important thing to me is that there is some kind of open, transparent, and democratic method for how the funds are spent.
I have yet to ever hear of a method to achieve these goals that is perfect and prone from some kind of abuse in one way or another, but open, transparent, and democratic seems to be a lot better than closed, secret and centralized.
The proposals should be for microbudgets. That is, if you want to do 10 small steps that need money, you should request money for each thing rather than a lump sump.
Of course, it is hard to do that in a decentralized way. Thus people should look at and question proposals before voting on them and people should work with the community before making a proposal.
One other possibility is to limit the maximum payout from the fund for a proposal. That would force people to make multiple proposals to cover things. Any thoughts on this?
One other possibility is to limit the maximum payout from the fund for a proposal. That would force people to make multiple proposals to cover things. Any thoughts on this?
I second this.
People are asked just if they like or dislike the project, not if the request is too high.
One other possibility is to limit the maximum payout from the fund for a proposal. That would force people to make multiple proposals to cover things. Any thoughts on this?
I second this.
People are asked just if they like or dislike the project, not if the request is too high.
What would be a reasonable limit?
One other possibility is to limit the maximum payout from the fund for a proposal. That would force people to make multiple proposals to cover things. Any thoughts on this?
I second this.
People are asked just if they like or dislike the project, not if the request is too high.
What would be a reasonable limit?
What about 5% of current fund badget?
Budget will change over time, we should adeguate authomatically.
My proposal for recharging fund: part of the 25000 NEM fee can be used (let's say 1000 NEM go to the harvester of the block and 24000 to the fund).
I think it's impossible to foresee what limits or paramaters make sense in the future. With a changing value of NEM everything changes… We need to be able to adjust this later (via votes?).
Hm… Very difficult.