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.
It is hard for me to completely see exactly how this system will play out, but I was thinking more of a 10% number and that is because they don't really need the full 10%, they actually only need 7%. If we make it only 5%, then really a team needs only 3.5% of the NEM population to control funding. I am a little worried about letting 3.5% of a group control money. Of course I know that many people won't vote, but I feel like 3.5% is a little low and I would rather see it go up to 70% out of the whole 10%.
And I would like to see a veto set at a flat 10.5% and give it at least 72 hours. When I say flat, I mean that basically that only no votes are counted. So that if a veto can get 10.5% of the population, then the measure fails. Why 10.5%, I thought it is 7 times 1.5.
Otherwise, I am still pretty happy with the discussion and the idea is one of the best crypto has so far.
It is an interesting idea. I do agree that conceptually quorum should be higher, but realistically I don't think even 5% quorum will be easy to get. Most people will just cash out their NEM to exchanges and poloniex/bter/etc are not going to care about NEM proposals to vote every week.
The veto idea is interesting. Does anyone have a counter argument against setting veto power at 10.5%?
I am sure you are right that it is hard to get a 5% quorum as we certainly had a hard time getting people to vote on other matters like logo and coin numbers. That said, this is free money. Lots of people might not be interested about a logo, but when it comes to getting free money, I find that some will have their interest peaked.
I don't really know where the line should be for quorum or veto should be, but I do want to avoid the BlueMeanie problem. I would hate for two or three hackers that got through the sockpuppet process to be able to team up and steal more. I know the devs could veto so there is a check, but still these kind of worst case scenarios pop in mind and they would be very harmful.
Help me get the definition right. Are we talking about a "vote" being"for" and a "veto" being "against". Or that there is a separate Veto power from a defined group.
If I understand correctly from the above, to have a veto of 10.5%, we are talking about an exercise where there are >=21% voting with 10.5% saying no and 11% saying yes, then the first round won't go through?
I am not sure how this works out to be.
Alternatively, I'd suggest this if it is not the same:
Minimum vote count = 10% importance total.
Minimum "for" is 60% of total vote importance (i.e., 6% importance) to qualify into second round for the funding.
Quantum of funds should also be limited to a certain value. In the absence of a certain value, then the quantum also must commensurate with the amount of importance one must get to go into the second round. For example, if the fund required is, say 25NS, then the minimum vote may be 12.5% instead of 10%. Something like that.
