Some governance improvments proposition

Governance
1

Proposal for Improving Polkadot Governance

Introduction

In order to enhance the efficiency, fairness, and transparency of Polkadot governance, I propose a series of measures aimed at improving the clarity of proposals, holding head ambassadors accountable, and balancing the influence of votes. This proposal is the result of in-depth reflections and contributions from the community, aiming to create a more democratic and inclusive decision-making environment.

1.** Simplification of Proposals**

Objective: Ensure that all proposals are accessible and understandable to the entire community.

Measures:

Mandatory Simplification Criterion: Each proposal must include a simplified summary, clearly explaining the objectives, action plan, and expected impact. Proposals that do not meet this criterion will be sent back for revision.

Q&A Sessions: Organize question-and-answer sessions for each proposal, where project proponents can explain their initiative and respond to community questions. These sessions will be recorded and made available online.

Standardized Documentation: Create a standardized format for proposal submissions, including mandatory sections for the simplified description, objectives, action plan, and expected impact.

  1. Introduction of a Step-by-Step Process

Objective: Structure the proposal validation process to ensure their relevance and feasibility.

Measures:

Pre-Proposal Phase: An initial phase where ideas are discussed and refined on public forums or dedicated platforms. (already exists)

Technical Validation Phase: Proposals undergo technical evaluation and feasibility analysis by independent technical experts. (fellowship?)

Preliminary Vote Phase: Once technically validated, a proposal can be submitted to a preliminary community vote to gauge general interest. Planning Phase: A detailed plan and budget must be developed and approved by another panel of experts.

Final Vote: The complete proposal, with planning and budget, is then submitted to a final vote.

  1. Quadratic Voting for Fairer Voting

Objective: Reduce the disproportionate influence of large token holders and encourage more balanced participation.

Measures:

Implementation of Quadratic Voting: Adopt the Quadratic Voting system where the cost of votes increases quadratically based on the number of votes cast. This reduces the influence of large token holders (whales) and encourages more equitable participation.

  1. Accountability and Performance of Head Ambassadors

Objective: Ensure that head ambassadors effectively fulfill their mission of education and community engagement.

Measures:

Performance-Based Reward System: Introduce a performance-based reward system for head ambassadors, linked to indicators such as community engagement, quality of information provided, and positive community feedback.

Community Feedback: Implement a regular feedback system where the community can evaluate the work of head ambassadors. These evaluations should be transparent and influential on their compensation.

Continuous Training: Offer continuous training and resources to help head ambassadors improve their communication, simplification, and community engagement skills.

Rotation and Renewal: Establish a regular rotation system for head ambassadors to ensure fresh perspectives and prevent complacency. Conclusion

This proposal aims to improve Polkadot governance by making processes clearer, fairer, and more transparent. By implementing these measures, we believe the community will be better equipped to make informed and relevant decisions, thereby strengthening the democracy and efficiency of our network.

This proposal can be adjusted based on community feedback before official submission. It aims to encourage open and constructive discussion to achieve optimized governance for Polkadot.

With my best wishes for Polkadot Kbconsulting45

1 Like
2

The concept of Quadratic Voting appears to provide an effective method for mitigating the disproportionate influence of large DOT holders (whales) by increasing the cost of votes quadratically. However, I’m curious about how this system might be impacted by the potential for these same whales to divide their tokens across multiple wallets. By creating several smaller wallets, a whale could theoretically vote more economically, thus circumventing the intended fairness of Quadratic Voting.

What measures are being considered to prevent this kind of manipulation and ensure that the system remains equitable and resilient? For instance, are there plans to implement mechanisms for detecting coordinated voting behaviors or to limit the influence of newly created wallets?

1 Like
3

@kbconsulting45

There is a framework being constructed called OpenGov Watch that outlines basic proposal parameters and is actively being worked on - directly funded by the W3F - not saying it is perfect, but it’s a start.

Attempting to create an independent subset of requirements will further confuse the current structure. At least reach out to match aligned values - also available is the Wish for Change track to reach community consensus on requests.

As for voting - there are multiple ways to increase individual / group power either by

  • delegations
  • building on Polkadot using $DOT as utility and collecting a tx fee
  • decentralized voices

Any change that introduces vote dilution takes away from one of the major $DOT demand drivers and is against how the system was built.

If you want a larger vote - you either buy it, campaign for it, or build something of value and charge for the service.

1 DOT 1 VOTE

4

Quadratic voting is not possible until we build a working reputation system.

This is already discussed in detail here: Quadratic Voting for Polkadot Governance

2 Likes
5

Yep and the problem stay the same. The richer you are, the more vote power you have and so we are not so far from our actual world system. Rich governs and others have only impression to govern. I hope you’ll find more ethic and decentralized kind of vote. That’s so important when it is about treasury decision where we can see more and more abuses to fund work of a pitiful level between friends!! very unfortunate

6

Why? What does reputation have to do without this process of quadratic voting? I don’t understand? Can you enlighten me?
Thanks

7

I probably should have said identity system, but reputation system is similar. Basically something which acts as a sybil resistance mechanism.

Quadratic voting only works when you can prevent large token holders from splitting their tokens across multiple accounts, bypassing the entire quadratic voting system.

Until you can do that, quadratic voting will do nothing.

2 Likes
8

Literally outlined 2 other ways to raise voting power but only one was focused on.

Personally here for major enterprise and possible government sub-agencies to participate.

Maybe even a government one day - will we be complaining that their vote is too big? or will we be content that we use this time to achieve a higher voting power to participate.

Your future is decided now.

Cheers.
J.

9

Ah yes thanks for those informations. That’s the same thing Cypher told before. I agree but no one proposed any solution about that? Hope propositions will arrive soon nice day man

10

I’m not complaining. I’m making an observation shared by many people who are in web3 to not reproduce our current system and get closer to cypherpunk thinking. Polkadot is an attractive ecosystem and I will put all my strength into ensuring that it is not perverted by greedy people. This is my one and only goal.
So let’s think about those important subjects for now. All our brains will find a solution if we forget cupidity and research of power but only share and freedom for people. Let’s go Dot

11

Do you believe that the technological limitations of automated decision systems can influence and shape the sociological systems that create them? Or is it the other way around, where the sociological systems dictate the structure and development of the technological systems, as suggested by Conway’s Law? To which extent in-between?

According to Conway’s Law, “Organizations that design systems (in the broad sense used here) are constrained to produce designs that are reflections of the communication structures within those organizations.”

— Melvin E. Conway, How Do Committees Invent?

12

I think that each of the two systems influences the other and forms a whole. This is why it is extremely important to take into account the limitations and perversities of each system for a governance solution that is as equitable as possible and in line with the cypherpunk thought movement.
But we must also take care to put in place safeguards so as not to endanger the ecosystem

13

But the most important thing is that Polkadot is in line with the values ​​conveyed. We cannot claim that governance is decentralized if it is governed by a handful of whales whose voting power is a function of their wealth and let them make treasury decisions so that friends or acquaintances can benefit from them.
That’s why i propose quadratic vote but as some community members said that’s not enough, we need to prevent the ability to split votes by doing it from multiple wallets belonging to the same whale. and there are surely other locks to put in place to ensure the sustainability of the method.

14

The cypherpunk ethos is primarily about privacy, therefore anonymity and resistance to cryptographic regulations that coerces such freedom. So, the fairness of representative delegation of decision power is more about democratic ideals. I’m not sure if the individuated personhood should be the carrier of decision power or should be the amount of units of accounting. Why one over the other? It’s not crystal clear to me what outcomes are we pursuing and how one delegation system or the other would render better outcomes. Because at the end you’re voting the proposals that come up to the system and the outcomes cannot be better than the actions or projects proposed.

2 Likes
15

Whales only dominate governance because turnout is low. Better to encourage more tokenholders to take part in governance than to worry about the whales, imo.

3 Likes
16

I enjoyed the section on “Simplification of Proposals,” and I support you in this. It’s very useful for the proposer to follow some rules before posting their referenda.

Mandatory Simplification Criterion - yes
Q&A Sessions - yes
Standardized Documentation - yes

Regarding the “Introduction of a Step-by-Step Process,” I support you on the first point, but for the other four, I’m not sure how they would work.

1 Like
17

I agree with this. It takes almost no effort to delegate.

1 Like
18

I have been observing the discussions on this subject for over a year and I see that often the answer is that we need to encourage the community to vote more. Very well why not, but no one has ever proposed a solution to encourage the community to vote. So apart from saying that we should rather encourage people to vote, what solution do you propose? And first of all why has no one thought of launching an audit with the community to find out why they don’t vote more? First identify why and maybe then you can put in place adequate solutions. Otherwise we won’t move forward. What do you say?

19

As i said, if only one point can improve Polkadot mechanism i will be very very happy :slight_smile:
Hope someone will push some of those propositions
Let’s see

1 Like
20

I agree. Yes, the cypherpunks were primarily campaigning for the freedom of peoples, but the question to ask is: Isn’t the governance of a system, whatever it may be, the cornerstone of the freedom process? Let’s not be afraid to propose solutions. And together, let’s move towards a system that is, if not perfect, at least ideal.