Love your work and the discussions that are taking place here.
25 years ago, here in Greece, we had a reality show called “the Wall”, where a literal wall was separating a luxurious house from a farm and the players were competing in various ways to determine which team (blue or red) will stay in the villa for one week. We, the audience were voting which player of the farm residents we prefer to stay in the game. The one with fewer votes was disqualified.
I remember this particular player, who was always the reason his team was losing and was never doing actual farm work to help them while staying at the “poor” side of the wall. He was always lazy and causing problems. Imagine a toxic guy, intentionally looking like Jesus, walking around barefoot, topless, using rhymes from the Bible and talking about God every chance he got. Audience hated him. BUT. When the voting day was taking place… let’s just say that a very particular Greek age group (>75) was backing him with their SMSs. So, every week, although he was the worst of his team, he kept staying in the game.
After a couple of months, one day, the game host announces a change in the voting process. From now on, you vote for the player you want to LEAVE, instead for the one you want to stay. It’s not a positive vote any more, but a negative one. Needless to say that our buddy Jesus was by far the first to leave with a record breaking vote number.
Although even as a small child I had foreseen this outcome, it still blew my mind how this rule change, which seemed insignificant at first, played such a big role. And at the end, which of the two systems is the fairest? In both cases people are voting for what they want to happen in the game, so how is it possible to have the opposite outcome?
Anyway, my suggestion, after carrying this memory for 25 years in my head, would be that the way I see it, the ada holder should have the ability to chose whether his vote (for dReps for eg) is a positive or a negative one and can allocate his voting power however he want.
Let’s say (as a simplified example), I have voting power of 100 ADA. I give 50 to Bob, 20 to Anna and -30 to John, who I hate and strongly believe he is harming the network.
Does it make sense to anyone else? Is it something you have discussed before?
Thanks for reading and excuse me for my English (I refuse to use Chat GPT for content corrections for the time being)