Mixmaster: any recommendation on the % needed to pass a community vote?
How about for quorum?
Mixmaster: any recommendation on the % needed to pass a community vote?
How about for quorum?
I'd go high...very high. We're talking about some potentially big funding and that shouldn't happen unless almost everyone aggrees.
I'd be more interested in how the voting should happen and if we're going to have a community committee or really anyone can vote.
I would also go high. Or at least start high.
If we start too high -> it can get lowered and we didn't lose funds for crap.
If we start too low -> it can get raised but we might lose funds for crap.
But where to start… I have really no idea. It depends so much on how many people participate in the voting…
We probably need to test that out. But how?
I would also go high. Or at least start high.
If we start too high -> it can get lowered and we didn't lose funds for crap.
If we start too low -> it can get raised but we might lose funds for crap.
But where to start... I have really no idea. It depends so much on how many people participate in the voting...
We probably need to test that out. But how?
We should probably also set a minimum number of votes or rather an importance limit (i.e. minimum of 60% of the importance of the network has to have voted).
Among those vote's I'd go with 80% being necessary for a decision.
There should prob also be a time limit. I don't think a vote should last longer than a month.
@minimum votes or importance:
So you mean:
- The importance sum of all accounts that voted have to be 60 %? I would agree to this. (Although this brings more questions, e.g.: What happens if the importance of accounts change significantly after the vote but before the time limit passes?)
- An 80 % majority is needed to accept the funding? This could be too much. Maybe also 60 %?
@time limit:
A month seems ok for me. I guess 3 weeks are ok, too.
@minimum votes or importance:
So you mean:
- The importance sum of all accounts that voted have to be 60 %? I would agree to this. (Although this brings more questions, e.g.: What happens if the importance of accounts change significantly after the vote but before the time limit passes?)
- An 80 % majority is needed to accept the funding? This could be too much. Maybe also 60 %?
@time limit:
A month seems ok for me. I guess 3 weeks are ok, too.
After everyvote check total importance of votes, if > 60% the proposal has passed. Doesn't matter what happens with the importance scores after that.
60% is too low imho. At least 75%.
@minimum votes or importance:
So you mean:
- The importance sum of all accounts that voted have to be 60 %? I would agree to this. (Although this brings more questions, e.g.: What happens if the importance of accounts change significantly after the vote but before the time limit passes?)
- An 80 % majority is needed to accept the funding? This could be too much. Maybe also 60 %?
@time limit:
A month seems ok for me. I guess 3 weeks are ok, too.
After everyvote check total importance of votes, if > 60% the proposal has passed. Doesn't matter what happens with the importance scores after that.
60% is too low imho. At least 75%.
I hope you guys are not on weed. We can't even get 80 people to vote for something here. Might as well lock it up and throw away the keys. lol.
@minimum votes or importance:
So you mean:
- The importance sum of all accounts that voted have to be 60 %? I would agree to this. (Although this brings more questions, e.g.: What happens if the importance of accounts change significantly after the vote but before the time limit passes?)
- An 80 % majority is needed to accept the funding? This could be too much. Maybe also 60 %?
@time limit:
A month seems ok for me. I guess 3 weeks are ok, too.
After everyvote check total importance of votes, if > 60% the proposal has passed. Doesn't matter what happens with the importance scores after that.
60% is too low imho. At least 75%.
I hope you guys are not on weed. We can't even get 80 people to vote for something here. Might as well lock it up and throw away the keys. lol.
If we see it doesn't work there is obviously no community that is able to manage such a fund and we'll do something else with it.
If the community wants to have controll over a fund then the community has to show some responsiblity and vote.
@minimum votes or importance:
So you mean:
- The importance sum of all accounts that voted have to be 60 %? I would agree to this. (Although this brings more questions, e.g.: What happens if the importance of accounts change significantly after the vote but before the time limit passes?)
- An 80 % majority is needed to accept the funding? This could be too much. Maybe also 60 %?
@time limit:
A month seems ok for me. I guess 3 weeks are ok, too.
After everyvote check total importance of votes, if > 60% the proposal has passed. Doesn't matter what happens with the importance scores after that.
60% is too low imho. At least 75%.
I hope you guys are not on weed. We can't even get 80 people to vote for something here. Might as well lock it up and throw away the keys. lol.
If we see it doesn't work there is obviously no community that is able to manage such a fund and we'll do something else with it.
If the community wants to have controll over a fund then the community has to show some responsiblity and vote.
Once the fund is locked in there, it shall have no means to take out. This decision is irreversible and immutable. Think carefully guys.
@minimum votes or importance:
So you mean:
- The importance sum of all accounts that voted have to be 60 %? I would agree to this. (Although this brings more questions, e.g.: What happens if the importance of accounts change significantly after the vote but before the time limit passes?)
- An 80 % majority is needed to accept the funding? This could be too much. Maybe also 60 %?
@time limit:
A month seems ok for me. I guess 3 weeks are ok, too.
After everyvote check total importance of votes, if > 60% the proposal has passed. Doesn't matter what happens with the importance scores after that.
60% is too low imho. At least 75%.
I hope you guys are not on weed. We can't even get 80 people to vote for something here. Might as well lock it up and throw away the keys. lol.
If we see it doesn't work there is obviously no community that is able to manage such a fund and we'll do something else with it.
If the community wants to have controll over a fund then the community has to show some responsiblity and vote.
Once the fund is locked in there, it shall have no means to take out. This decision is irreversible and immutable. Think carefully guys.
How so ?
I don't think the core devs will have time to implement a completely automatic funding behaviour which means the funds will be in some multi-sig account which means we can use them anyway we want.
Then we have to make it clear now that between launch and V1, this will be put to test, failing which, it won't be "ported" to post V1 implementation, when it will be locked forever.
Of course the assumption is, post-V1 we will have these smart business rules that will make the whole fund immutable and irreversible.
Why do it automatically if the devs can veto anyway? There is no need for an automatic spending of funds which the community voted for. If the devs are not trusted then it is over anyway. They can put a veto on anything.
Why do it automatically if the devs can veto anyway? There is no need for an automatic spending of funds which the community voted for. If the devs are not trusted then it is over anyway. They can put a veto on anything.
+1
by the time V1 rolls around, hopefully the devs will have proved, if not already, that they are trustworthy.. by the time we get to V1 there wont be a need to do it all automatically..
Mixmaster: any recommendation on the % needed to pass a community vote?
How about for quorum?
I'd go high...very high. We're talking about some potentially big funding and that shouldn't happen unless almost everyone aggrees.
I'd be more interested in how the voting should happen and if we're going to have a community committee or really anyone can vote.
Anyone with non-zero importance should be able to vote, as voting is based on importance scores.
I would just do what I wrote in the first post of this thread. The devs have veto power, so it should be fine.
[font=verdana]3. Method to vote on a proposal[/font][font=verdana]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).[/font]
Mixmaster: any recommendation on the % needed to pass a community vote?
How about for quorum?
I'd go high...very high. We're talking about some potentially big funding and that shouldn't happen unless almost everyone aggrees.
I'd be more interested in how the voting should happen and if we're going to have a community committee or really anyone can vote.
I think somebody should have at least $10-$100 worth of NEM to be able to vote. NEM is a community and a minor investment proves a person is NEMber.
Anyone with non-zero importance should be able to vote, as voting is based on importance scores.
One thing I worry about is a big whale with 1% PoI having all his funds in one account and voting, and then transferring them all to another account and push the PoI up of the new account, and then vote again. If a poll went on for a long time, it seems like it could be gamed by shuffling funds.
Therefore I have a few ideas to stop this.
1. Polls would only be open for very sort times. (In country's they vote for leaders usually on just one day. But for NEMsters and crypto, I think it would be hard to get people to all vote on one day because NEM is not of ultimate importance to many)
2. A person's PoI at the moment the poll was created would be counted, not they PoI at the time of voting. That effectively locks in a person's PoI and doesn't all it to vary and be gamed. (I don't know if this is even possible)
3. People would have to pre-register for a vote and during the pre-registration then a PoI score would be recorded and weighted. Coins from one account couldn't be used in the weight of PoI from another account and this would be figured out by some kind of taint analysis or some other method. After an account's PoI was locked in during registration and the registration period expired, then voting could be commenced.
4. A person's vote is noted in a poll, but their exact weight is not recorded until the very last moment of the poll. So if my PoI changed during the course of the poll, that change would be reflected in that last moment of the poll. (I think that this is the easiest method to implement. I still think this allows for some levels of abuse, but reduces it some.)
I think that it is not imperative that these features be implemented on the first version of voting. It can later be updated, but I think it is something to consider. Cheaters will try to cheat and measures need to be taken so that they can't.
One thing I worry about is a big whale with 1% PoI having all his funds in one account and voting, and then transferring them all to another account and push the PoI up of the new account, and then vote again. If a poll went on for a long time, it seems like it could be gamed by shuffling funds.
Therefore I have a few ideas to stop this.
1. Polls would only be open for very sort times. (In country's they vote for leaders usually on just one day. But for NEMsters and crypto, I think it would be hard to get people to all vote on one day because NEM is not of ultimate importance to many)
2. A person's PoI at the moment the poll was created would be counted, not they PoI at the time of voting. That effectively locks in a person's PoI and doesn't all it to vary and be gamed. (I don't know if this is even possible)
3. People would have to pre-register for a vote and during the pre-registration then a PoI score would be recorded and weighted. Coins from one account couldn't be used in the weight of PoI from another account and this would be figured out by some kind of taint analysis or some other method. After an account's PoI was locked in during registration and the registration period expired, then voting could be commenced.
I think that it is not imperative that these features be implemented on the first version of voting. It can later be updated, but I think it is something to consider. Cheaters will try to cheat and measures need to be taken so that they can't.
We should calculate the importance at the time the poll ends.
If you re-read my original proposal, I recommend doing proposals and voting once a week, so no poll would be open for more then a few days.
I just edited my post to say your suggestion. I was just a moment too late. hahaha
I just reread you proposal. Your ideas would help a lot.