Going to rewatch this. So exiting times!
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t this system similar to Dash where it’s basically the largest balances that get all the say? i.e. one dollar = one vote? isn’t that the exact opposite of what Cardano stands for?
I don’t believe so. Proof of stake is founded on the principle that stake is what counts, bigger stakeholders have more say. Everyone should be able to get stake but only to the extent that they can pay for it. It is their investment that secures the system. Penalizing larger stakeholders by reducing their return could only harm the system, incentivising them to jump ship and/or perhaps use their power irresponsibly.
Now is the time to voice your opinion. See link below for a survey about Voltaire:
I’m not talking about their return being proportional to their stake, I’m talking about voting on development and projects. One of the biggest problems we have in voting in our civilisation today is with the powerful financial interests “buying votes”, surely it’s a major problem to be going down this path with Cardano, no?
I’d say no, because this is not civil government. The power of the vote is limited to the Cardano project. It’s more like having a say in how your bank operates, than in national or local government. And those most affected by potential changes should have the most influence on those changes, IMO.
Interesting perspective mate @RobJF, and I could definitely get behind it.
But I think we should also look further than the Bank analogy, because Cardano as a DAO would also have contributors and community leaders that will become increasingly affected.
In that case we could add an expertise/involvement/commitment/contribution/leadership factor(s) that will augment stake, and have an effect on relative voting power.
So as you say, and as we move along the future -
This is something I’ve been considering also in the context of “Rich take over the system” problem. Once we have trust with members of the community, the project could bestow benefits on them to counter negative effects that may come from “Big Faceless Money”.
You with me on something like this?
You have to remember we’re talking about liquid democracy, where people without large stakes but with good reputations in the community can get others to delegate their votes to them. So it seems to me that probably provides what you’re looking for.
Putting anyone with money in charge of regulating the influence of those with good reputation/contribution/leaders?
I don’t think that’s what I’m looking for here. Lets keep looking…
What I’m talking about is factoring in other things besides ownership. Like the case of normal stocks vs control stocks etc. Not 1:1 but that’s the general idea.
What factors go into a “Control Share”, besides ownership, should be the next big discussion imo.
And we should probably experiment some, before we implement anything on “production”.
Hmm, interesting, I see it very differently: people without money getting power in proportion to their standing in the community.
Sure, but in your example do they get power? Or is it ordained capriciously by the wealthy?
Would their power really be
Or something else entirely?
What you describe sounds to me exactly like the current system => Money owns Leadership.
Outside of a “Bank scenario”, that to me, is just insane. What have we changed/fixed?
But if we incorporate new mechanisms from the get go, that actually give control to those who deserve it (owners included), and rewards people who produce value and maintain “society” with control, then money will not have the only real voice.
To go beyond near term stuff, I’m talking about teachers, about social workers, firemen etc.
Maybe they shouldn’t make more money than they do, but at minimum, for me, they should have more say in the decisions of the community, than someone who idles, or is self-servingly successful. “Owners” already get all the reward they deserve in that scenario imho.
Teachers and firemen have unions that negotiate on there behalf. This gives them a great deal of power. In some people’s opinion to much. I would imagine the Cardano ecosystem similar voting blocks will emerge. Going to be interesting to watch.
But who decides who deserves it? You seem to be just pushing that decision back into the realm of “we’ll think about it later”.
Those who actually contribute directly, prove their worth by getting their projects funded and are rewarded within that framework.
Others, who don’t develop but are recognized experts or influencers, get delegated votes from those who respect them.
Teachers, social workers etc are irrelevant because this is not about general governance but blockchain governance. Everyone who contributes in any way should eventually be rewarded financially, or with power, or both. Society at large is very, very different from any blockchain community. Don’t get mesmerized by the use of the word “governance”.
The whole ethos of Cardano is to give power back to the people and regardless of their standing in the community have equality in every aspect, to have a voice.
I don’t see how that’s relevant to what I said (other than in (American?) people’s minds - which is important I admit).
I’m not talking about workers’ rights here @Donnybaseball - I’m talking about giving more governance power to those contibuting to the greater good. Just clarifying.
Not mesmerized I hope. But I am thinking about the problems of governing society for sure.
It’s not in the near term scope, but definitely within scope for me. And now is when we’ll be making some pivotal decisions, like in any beginning.
Well, the community for sure.
That’s why it’s important to start early. So we (early holders of ADA) spread around power that cannot be canceled out with just capital easily later on, when big money interest comes on (price rising etc. will also help).
Something along those lines. I realize this is sort of circular, which is why I’m focused on mechanisms to break, or just slightly alter, the old cycle. Cardano is not just a bank .
i think you mean … haha
Indeed a typo
I guess what I’m getting at is people can get together to consolidate voting power which is probably made more easy through liquid democracy and challenge the bigger entities. The first few votes will be interesting to watch to see what kind of participation we get.