There have been some solutions to encourage tokenholders to vote more. For one, vote delegation. For another, pool staked DOT will soon be usable in governance.
That’s a decent start, but I agree with you that it should be a priority to try to motivate tokenholders to take part in governance.
I don’t know what other levers there are to pull to increase voter turnout, but I do know that quadratic voting is sybil-able and that any referendum to marginalize whales will inevitably be voted down by whales.
(All this said, I’m not 100% sure that outsized whale influence is a bad thing, and it seems to me that OpenGov was architected to give more influence to those with more “skin in the game,” which isn’t on its face an unreasonable foundation.)
As mentioned earlier
Delegated Votes are available to anyone.
Decentralized Voices are live.
Polkadot value is there for anyone intelligent / gritty enough to get moving and create their own project to capture value.
Taking away votes from large accounts who have earned their spot on a free market is not freedom.
If you want a larger vote - earn it.
If you want a more even voting platform - get out there and educate others to vote.
Competition will breed more change than complacency.
There you are going off track on my proposals. I am not trying to remove the right to vote from whales because they have their role like any member of the community but to minimize the weight of their vote so that democracy can continue to express itself and not have a semblance of democracy where the richest have almost total decision-making power, that is very different. Quadratic voting (with some more necessary imporvements) does not take away the right to vote from whales. When I see the distribution of wallets in my last census I see that only 1000 people have more than 100000 Dots and that only 3500 wallets have more than 20000 Dots. You can’t say that we are not reproducing the way our current world works. The problem with human beings is their perpetual search for power, that is what divides people and widens the gaps. These are not the values that I thought I saw on Polkadot, am I wrong?
Your words demonstrate the perversity of the system since you recognize that this proposal will not be able to pass because the whales will lose their power and vote against. The circle is complete. So there is indeed a problem. But if this is ok for the majority, no problem for me.
Well, I think by some points of view it is a perverse system, but by others it’s not. I’m not sure, myself. It’s an interesting experiment though.
As for “if this is ok for the majority,” I don’t think that’s something we can know, since without personhood/identity/reputation/kyc we can’t know if one account = one person or if one person = one account.
On edit: I don’t think it’s very accurate to discuss OpenGov in terms of “democracy” for the same reasons: Token voting is one-token/one-vote, not one-person/one-vote, after all.
Ironic as you discuss the perpetual search for power - alluding to whales (who place an immense amount of financial risk on this network actually succeeding) - meanwhile attempting to shift the way in which power is distributed.
No matter how you frame it - it is always a topic and request / grant for power.
Whether one wants to keep it or distribute it - the inherent concept doesn’t change.
So yes - I disagree fully - as mentioned above, there are multiple ways to earn delegations and voting rights from within the system without attempting to change voting rights of larger entities who have earned their right to vote in size.
I stick to this concept, not only as a DOT holder, but as one knowing that eventually the voting sizes will be so much larger than what we see today and essentially will make single account, non-delegated votes obsolete.
Whales will have their own fight one day.
Thanks for your time and good luck with your proposed changes.
Disagree 3x
We do not agree and that is okay. I respect your point of view and I hope that it will succeed in time. Personally I simply push ideas, whether they are accepted or not does not prevent me from sleeping at night. On the other hand, they are full of deep convictions. And you cannot oppose me that a large part of the community raises its discontent on certain and I mean certain modes of functioning of the governance and in particular on the resulting use of the treasury. Have a nice day Juba and let’s go DOT
I think Shawn’s idea of an OpenGov voting bot is a good one.
I’m more interested in building my own robot than voting by proxy.
There is no need to worry about whether the delegation can resist the temptation.
One-coin, one-vote governance often leads to a concentration of power, where 1% of token holders could control 90% of the decisions. This centralization introduces fragility into the system.
OpenGov offers a solution through representative voting via delegation, which can help counterbalance the accumulation of power among a few individuals. Instead of pushing for a single ideal or set of reforms (as seen in this and various other posts), one could form a political party with objectives and plans, gathering supporters who delegate their voting power to the party. If the party gains enough delegated power, it could become a dynamic force in governance.
In fact, some delegated power formations already exist and vote on many proposals, as everyone knows . Major holders often vote in different directions, so it’s likely that a dynamic balance of opposing forces, factions, or parties will become more apparent and established over time.
This is another solution. I’m not friendly with it because it pushes a politic system i don’t like. You should have some powerfull group but when those groups will be effective you would have to make concessions and so freedom would be an illusion.
But why not Sodazone
Thanks for the link Shawn. I can see that i’m one year late on this topic
But i’m “happy” to think about it, it seems that i’m “in the Polkadot train”.
As it stands, do you know where the thinking is at? Has there been any progress or important decisions regarding quadratic voting and the method of allocating the treasury as well as and especially the evaluation of the work delivered to see if the allocated budget is deserved? Thank you and have a nice day and let’s go DOT
Quadratic voting has been pretty resoundingly dismissed due to its sybil vulnerability.
Treasury allocation has been discussed a ton, and a perusal of this forum will yield many interesting discussions.
Evaluation of work delivered is an ongoing topic as well, but I think OGTracker may be at the forefront of this effort at the moment.
@mister_cole - what is concerning are the number of people who feel they need to speak out to change the entire system instead of making changes within the system.
As mentioned before -
Delegations are available
Decentralized Voices
Decentralized Futures for funding
An open source network ready to be built on
And then there’s an entirely Open decentralized treasury readily available for anyone to act or participate in.
The best analogy I can think of is trying to change the system in OpenGov is like attempting to change the way traffic lights in cities work.
Instead of changing the entire structure of traffic flow framework - work on things like campaigning heavy ticketing for red lights or stricter rules for jaywalking - if this was OpenGov, participate in ideas for more transparent reporting, vote delegations and awareness - work with those who are already making changes - OpenGov Watch / OpenGov Tracker - they literally request feedback all the time from the community.
Attempting small change is difficult for most because it actually requires that act of doing something whereas discussing the entire framework of policies and change has very little actionable tasks available except to sit around talking about it.
Would like to see more down to earth actionable small changes > full blown radical ones.
. Major holders often vote in different directions, so it’s likely that a dynamic balance of opposing forces, factions, or parties will become more apparent and established over time.