I’d like to open a discussion about decentralization and the voting system within the various DVs (Decentralized Voices). For those who may not know, DVs is a program through which the Web3 Foundation (W3F) delegates its DOT, which are then used to vote on governance decisions in OpenGov.
Currently, there are six different entities appointed as DVs by the W3F. However, I have some concerns about a potential issue and would like to hear your opinions on it.
Do you think that someone who votes and expresses his opinion in one DV -for example, xDao- should also be able to vote in other DVs - like yDao and zDao -?
To clarify my point, imagine a situation similar to U.S. elections, where a single citizen could vote in three different states. It’s clear that this kind of multiple influence would be problematic and go against the principle of fairness, as a single person would have disproportionate power compared to others. Similarly, if one person can influence multiple DVs, it could lead to a form of manipulation that compromises the integrity of the system.
What do you think? Is this a real risk to decentralization, or is it something the system can manage?
I have thought about this and I currently see it as early days & testing. DAO’s are a collective voice. For the opinions I have absorbed, we will eventually live in a world of DAO’s. Meaning, I live in an association today where I pay monthly for external maintenance for my home, hence where a DAO can come in. School boards, and so on can benefit from these collectives.
With the above being said, It appears DIM is one person one vote, however it was clear it could be used in DAO’s and individually, so long term it would require government rules and regulations if DAO’s were part of voting on government appointed elections. Here in Polkadot organization voting is the norm today even though I vote more with a personal wallet right now. In school it was taught here your vote is private and in business to not share politics, a very different mindset to current environments here and a mind shift for me.
This might apply if the DAO exclusively relies on votes delegated by its members, as on Polkadot, when you delegate your personal vote, it goes to one person/entity only and cannot be further redelegated. However, if the DAO receives delegation from the W3F, the situation shifts. In this scenario, individuals involved in one, two, or even three DAOs could potentially “manipulate” voting outcomes and sway opinions to “take advantage” of the delegation. I wanted to open this discussion because I am seeking a clear perspective: decentralization and DAOs are great, but a degree of ethics and transparency should remain the cornerstone of any community.
Don’t mistake open governance for a representative democracy. Its foundation rests on voting power that’s directly tied to the amount of tokens held and the length of the lock-in period. This means that large holders can, in theory, leverage their influence to maximize their returns. However, there’s nothing inherently wrong with this; they’re simply playing by the same rules as everyone else.
As Anatole France once put it: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
It’s important not to expect a network treasury’s mission to be about delivering moral justice. In fact, attempts to enforce “moral justice” can often slide into forms of populist control, both subtle and overt.
It’s in one’s inner convictions and will to act accordingly.
I see your concern but I think it’s directed the wrong way.
One person being a member of and expressing their opinion within multiple DAOs (let’s assume each DV is a DAO) is not a problem. Maybe one day, all of us will be members of multiple DAOs which vote on the same proposals.
What is a problem in fairness terms is one person having a strong influence which is multiplied. this may be because they are a leading member of multiple DAOs, or may be because they also, for example, are a whale, or have control over public opinion some way. A small or medium influence being multiplied is no real problem, more just an expression of the complexity of the interconnection of individuals in the space.
(And even fairness problem is assuming that what we are aiming for is fairness. It seems more likely that the best results are achieved by best mitigating human cognitive biases and ego, rather than specifically by achieving fairness - though if that is the case, not allowing one individual too much influence also brings us closer to that goal )