Oh, okay, than you! 
āI would start one community and I would work with the Chinese community to identify someone to start a Chinese community. Once these communities reach a threshold of 1000 members and have completed their first election, then the EOS block producers could vote on allocating 0.125% inflation to each community.ā
By āeach communityā do you mean that only your community and the Chinese community would get the opportunity to recieve 0.125% of inlfation or would every community get the opportunity to recieve (based on how BPs vote of course) 0.125% of inlfation if they meet the same member levels and hold an election?
Why not allow each community to set the membership rate for itself?
What happens when there are multiple Chinese / Western communities competing to become āthe oneā?
We form community of communities. Democracy of democracies. Iāll be explaining this process more. Right now simple baby steps.
I think you might want to reconsider using the word democracy here.
I think the thing that will make these systems effective is in fact the exact fact that they are non-democratic.
Have these things begun? When will the effect be seen?
In terms of trying to prevent the election system from being gamed the idea is to randomly assign the people in the groups. Questions on this:
1/ What will ensure that the assignment is truly random and who is in control of this part of the process?
2/ Will the people assigned to each group be anonymous or public initially and subsequently?
3/ Will their true names and locations always be kept secret and only the EOS public address known?
I presume that information about how all group members voted would be recorded on the blockchain.
In the event that an organisation decided to attempt to force a particular candidate through the voting rounds by pressure or bribery of other group members that could be attempted if the people were identifiable publicly. Even starting only with the EOS public address, it might still be possible to trace people back to a particular name by a government for example as they could track the tokens back to the original exchange for fiat currency and require an organisation to hand over KYC details.
On the other hand, if other group members are not identifiable publicly that might affect confidence in the voting process. Would people trust a process when the only thing known is the public EOS address of the group members?
I created a slide deck presentation this morning for the blockchain-agnostic group idea I mentioned above. You can view it here: http://bit.ly/fiogroups-deck The prototype is up and running as well. I welcome feedback and would like to know if this concept of a very simple group structure using a blockchain agnostic identifier (FIO Addresses and FIO Domains work with every blockchain and token) for both the individual and the group makes sense as something of potential value for these groups described in this idea.
3 Likes
Luke,
This is quality.
Since weāre going blockchain-agnostic here, I want to let you know how weāre thinking of similar stuff in Cosmos-land.
Basically, weāre assuming that even your HOA would benefit from a sovereign chain, and making them as easy as possible to set up. Features like the ones shown in your slides would exist in modules, and the modules would be coupled to UI components, and both would be used on many chains.
Regardless I am very interested to learn more about this idea, and it definitely mirrors some concepts weāre cooking up for GitHub - tendermint/starport: The easiest way to build a blockchain., as does the whole approach of āmap the software to the community and leverage transparency.ā
Only thing that makes me prefer the Cosmos approach is the sovereignty.
Ideas? How do you define democracy?
1 Like
The way Iām looking at it, democracy is a setup where every person has an equal say in matters.
We (society and maybe particularly the United States) get into trouble here because people arenāt equal, and belong to multiple groups simultaneously, and have unequal positions in all of those groups.
Since equality is a fiction, it ends up becoming harmful to society.
In corporations, undesirable equality is avoided in much the same manner as it is in a fast proof of stake blockchain network: a personās say in matters is weighted by their level of investment and engagement.. Some CEO/Founders bring very little capital to their business, and instead earn their equity through a combination of hard work and unique vision.
That equity is validated, proven right, when the company or organization begins to have the impacts desired by its various stakeholders: investors, customers, and community.
When a founder doesnāt bring a lot of capital to the table, an investor may choose to put their own money at risk to back the founderās vision. In these cases, the investor gains additonal control of the enterprise.
This system has worked for at least 500-ish years, when it was concieved of to finance international trade, and while it is non-democratic, it is voluntary and fair.
Generally speaking, shares are distributed for contributions of:
- Unique skill
- Capital
ā¦ in fact not much more than that.
- Graphene
- Cosmos
- Polkadot
- Scorex
- čæę
All use this notion that there are basically 2 groups:
People contributing skill
- witnesses/validators/supernodes
- the team writing the code and creating & marketing the product
- Steem & similar have an interesting setup that allows nearly anyone to contribute skill trhough writing
People contributing capital
- Investors
This system isnāt āfairā like me saying I can dig shovel out a ditch just as well as the guy who does that, itās fair.
In the realm of ditchdigging, or flying a boeing jet, or architecture, or competitive swimming, or operating construction equipment, well, there are simply far better suited people to do those things.
I am nowhere close to their equal. Furthermore, society is certain to function better if I do not have input on how they do their work, better for all if I defer.
Likewise, I make songs about the importance of fees in blockchain systems pretty well:
However, when thereās a scenario that involves singing about blockchain fees, flying a boeing, digging ditches, and competitive singing, we now have a difficult coordination problem, and something that resembles a society,
Itās my hope that the coordination process would be transparent, so that we donāt end up with something akin to lobbying in US politics. This, I figure, is where the blockchain comes in, and it could even be several of them: we contain multitudes.
An individual is a member of many decison-making groups, and itās my reckoning that the 2/3rds threshold is crucial to pushing people towards better decisions.
Now, apply this technique to the development of bare land, and make sure that people are assured of the right to exit to other plots of land. This means that people can try whatever theyād like to inside their land, but sovereignty is a hard requirement for these experiments: Maybe communism really does work. (Note: I donāt think it does)
These sovereign micro-states, would of course naturally compete with one another-- this is not too far off from your notion that counties are the ideal political unit size in the United States. Since they can make the rules that theyād like to, and anyone can leave, they can experiment with new forms of governance and just might get to the big goal:
Consistently Better Outcomes
Places, companies, projects, and communities that achieve consistently better outcomes, will make good models for other governments, and by rapidly iterating based on what works and what does not, we can go further and get to better outcomes faster.
PS: Some of the thinking here is shaped by these books:
- Anatomy Of the State
- Democracy: The God That Failed
Democracy āStake-Weighted Governanceā
Hoppe seems to at times advocate a return to monarchism, and if thatāll get us to consistently better outcomes, I figure thatās fineā¦ but personally, I think that the most effective governance Iāve seen, is the governance systems used in fast proof of stake blockchains, and that those patterns can be extended into āmeatspace.ā
2 Likes
I find that stake weighted generally leads to oligarchs and closer to monarchs.
I also find most forms of democracy donāt actually achieve the equal representation due to implementation flaws.
What do you call higov?
2 Likes
Which is perfectly fine, and in fact it is a feature that optimizes for a lot of things, not a bug.
Any and all democracies also tend to create āoligarchsā that influence the process indirectly. Difference is they are often using dishonest methods to achieve their goals, often operating secretly behind peoples backs. Democracy is optimizing for the politician breed of people, and these cold blooded lizards lacking any empathy are the most comfortable lying to other peoples faces.
This sounds extremely similar to the most popular communist excuse
But letās imagine you manage to achieve perfectly equal representation. In this case again, the most dishonest politician able and willing to manipulate most other people will have the most influence on the system.
2 Likes
@bytemaster, I pretty much mirror @ivmitkoās sentiment here.
People simply arenāt equal, and hierarchy is natural.
The nice thing about fast POS chains with governance, especially if applied to āmeatspaceā is that we can have a hierarchy + accountability, which rarely occurs in human systems.
One of the things that makes hierarchy so dangerous, is that often those at the top are not accountable.
Immutability doesnāt fully solve this, but I think it helps a great deal.
3 Likes
Could we start with Consensus to be a validator of Democracy?
What would that mean?
erm,
Iām glad that I caught up around these parts.
I made a video with two colleagues, itās a deep dive into Consensus comparisons, but then also, whatās the point of all this anyhow?
The video is kind of a hiefer-- 1.5 hrs, and could have gone on longer. Might try and keep future Sunday convos a bit shorter.
Was just going to share this with @bytemaster
I think this DAO would be a powerful launch point for EdenOS to organize and governā¦ Could save the community 2+ years of development. Built on eosio for eosio and already has all the features you were mentioning thatās needed.
Just need to modify the membership approval contract to require 3 signaturesā¦ But otherwise all the proposals, quest, contributions, etc can be routed through here.
Over 120 members have been using this for 2 years to make contributions (just been quietly actually building and not promoting so farā¦)
9 Likes
Awesome! Letās connect about this. Hit me up in Telegram @ lukestokes. Iād really like to learn more about Cosmos and I would love to give all Cosmos users their own FIO Address.
1 Like
doing so now 