Good paper. I didn’t dive too deeply into the specific cryptographic implementations, but I think the theories outlined in the paper mesh well with my current proposed model. It has very similar mechanisms in place. The main difference is that my model introduces a board of trustees. The purpose of the board is to create and maintain a unique vision and enforce that vision across the contribution process. Stong leadership and the need for a coherent vision are problems raised in my survey of the community. Luckily, board membership itself would be subject to the same democratic voting process by the users and contributors that keep the system from being overly centralized.
The other main diversion in my model from theirs is that I am not planning to introduce a new coin with any currency-like properties, so I cannot rely on minting and taxation as means for funding. Likewise, I plan on tying voting power to effort and monetary investment rather than stake ownership. If that model does not turn out to be a good fit, I could move to a stake-based model, requiring currency-based funding, but that is likely to be a poor fit with a big-picture model that focuses on fair compensation rather than dividends-based profits.
Thank you for bringing the paper to my attention – it certainly provides a wealth of knowledge.
I suggest giving users certain voting powers, but not control. (Not sure which kind yet).
For me it’s a question of involvement. Users are the #1 priority for the product (feature priorities, UX, vision, etc.), but contributors are the ones who know they are going to have to do it.
Consumers should set the Product road map and priorities 100% (with contributors and board alongside them as equals, they are users too), with some veto power from the board probably (which I find a question mostly of how you design your motions).
All other decision making should be split something like - Big Organization:
Board: 30% Contributors: 60% Community (potential users are important too): 10% Small Organization:
Board: 50% Contributors: 35% Community: 15%
Board and contributors are inherently more engaged with the product than users, most of whom will not even show up for the vote, (count on that if you are talking B2C).
I’m just spitballing ideas here, so I know it sounds quite wild, but on my end it’s just a question of selecting the rules and the values of the parameters.
Atm we are trying to agree on a system, or a vision even.
Sure. The reason I have suggested control up to this point is that I want some measure of guarantee that the votes really do matter. I suppose there may be other ways of accomplishing that besides direct control. I’m open to softening on the control aspect if value in voting can be maintained.
Yes, I’m 100% with you on these points.
Yes, I like this too. So that the math may be generalized, the voting power of the board can probably correlate inversely with its size.
.