This is a democracy problem rather than a Crypto problem.
It is hard to solve.
One idea is that;
- Voters (MNO's) can choose to vote themselves or can delegate their vote to another entity (Lets call them Expert Evaluators, EE's...its just a name and doesn't imply expertise) that has the power to cast their MNO vote on a proposal.
- EE's voting histories are transparent and their voting history is public for all to see (and comment on).
- - If you have allowed your vote to be used by an EE you are able to see what they voted yes to and what they voted no to (as is everyone), and remove or continue your support of that EE
- - A Monthly report is composed and distributed by the EE's (or an EE Admin) to all MNO's listing the EE's voting direction and preferably also a short rationale for each decision on each proposal.
- MNO's can reclaim their delegated votes at any time
- - Lets say they disagree with the way that their EE voted on some things, or just one thing, they can remove their support
- - Lets say that they have more free time and want to evaluate proposals themselves
No MNO is forced to use the system of EE's, and can always and at anytime user their vote themselves, but if they feel that a better system is to delegate then they can do that.
This is actually a purer form of 'informed democracy' and is the way that nations should vote, but until now this has not been logistically possible.
One possible issue of course, is that 'Unreasonable Proposal ZOMG!' is voted through by an EE voting block, all the MNO's receive the Monthly report after the fact and go 'WTF! All the money to sponsor Baby Giraffes in Mongolia!?' but by then its too late...
So maybe during the open period of a proposal it would be listed that EE Block 'Ivote4U' is currently pledging 60 MNO's votes to 'yes' or whatever, so any MNO that has delegated to that block can remove support if they like.
I am very interested in the MNO > Proposal system and seeing how this develops as it is, if you like, a testbed for a new democracy movement.
- Will MNO's get voter fatigue when required to vote on every proposal (Imagine that you were required to vote on every piece of legislation your government wanted to pass...this would be a full time job and you wouldn't have the time to review all the proposals with enough depth to be able to make an informed decision)
- Could such a decentralised system work on a nation level (or at least in a better way than the current 'Democracy' system?)
The advantage of the current MNO > Proposal system of course, is that it is only voting on positive outcomes (shall we give Proposal X an amount of Y DASH?), and has no power to create negative outcomes (ALL of you will be unable to do THIS!)
Unfortunately, Governments spend a lot of their time limiting what their citizens can do, and so such a system outlined above has issues when votes can be cast to impinge on the rights of other groups of (minority) citizens. The DASH proposal system is inherently positive and would therefore work much better in a system outlined as above.
Comments and criticism welcome!
Come on...I can take it...
- Expecting a rant from Camosoul
- Expecting 'but decentralisation!' arguments (the above is still decentralised, it is just organised...the two can and should co-exist)
- Expecting that you didn't read this far down the post...