This is a follow on to Zylo’s 11 speed proposals.
The voting system currently used for the initial setup is “Basic voting”, which is a single choice voting with three choices: for, against, or abstain. It implements a basic token based quorum voting, pursuant to which a minimum of 3,470,307,901 $Justice tokens equivalent to 20% of the $Justice token supply are necessary for a proposal to pass. Once this threshold has been met, whichever decision has more votes wins. If a proposal does not reach the quorum threshold, a proposal fails. This system was chosen by the core team as a temporary measure until a more thought through voting system is agreed.
There may be more suitable methods for a governance system. Snapshot offers several voting systems (see more details on the voting systems):
Single choice voting with three choices: for, against and abstain
Single choice voting
Each voter may select only one choice.
Each voter may select any number of choices.
Each voter may spread voting power across any number of choices. Results are calculated quadratically.
Ranked choice voting:
Each voter may select and rank any number of choices. Results are calculated by instant-runoff counting method.
Each voter may spread voting power across any number of choices.
The current simple token based voting system is plutocratic: it gives persons with the most tokens the most votes. Plutocracy is a paradigm considered widely inferior to democracy (Plutocracy - Wikipedia). The current voting system also provides an attack vector to the DAO through vote buying, whereby the DAO may be taken over by a group or person unaligned with the mission by a party borrowing a sufficient number of $Justice tokens for the simple act of voting.
I propose to adopt a Quadratic Voting system - at least for matters that are of great importance. Quadratic voting is a mathematically elegant way to reduce the influence of whales. It thus allows for more democratic decision making, by favouring the voting power of the “poor and many” over the “rich and many”. Quadratic Voting reflects the intensity of people’s preferences in collective decisions. It greatly mitigates tyranny-of-the-majority and factional control problems.
Accordingly, my suggestion would be the following:
For any action to be implemented by the AssangeDAO, a AIP must be prepared and must pass through the following process, as amended from time to time and publicized on the AssangeDAO Forum:
- Creation of a draft proposal using the AIP Template and its discussion in the AssangeDAO Forum, with the discussion open for a minimum of 7 days. Where a proposal requires any additional on-chain interaction by AssangeDAO, the required code must be provided prior to the draft proposal moving into Active Proposal stage.
- A simple poll is conducted on the forum to take a temperature check as to whether the Proposal is likely going to pass.
- Where a proposal is vetoed by the Assange family unit, it will not be processed. [This aspect was already decided by a previous AIP.]
Where a proposal meets the requirements of the Draft Proposal stage, a Moderator (known as “Author” on Snapshot - to be separately voted on) will assign an AIP number and move the proposal into active voting on Snapshot.
An AIP is accepted if, within the Voting Period:
- the [quadratic voting] result in favour of the AIP is higher than the quadratic voting result against; and
- The quorum threshold is 3,470,307,901 $Justice tokens (equivalent to 20% of the token supply).