Now the "wisdom of the crowd" is a technical term that refers to some really interesting phenomenon. In several situations when you ask a crowd to evaluate a situation. Especially a situation that involves evaluation a number in a one dimensional range (like the money to allocate for a budget, for example) it has been shown that asking this question to several people (the more the better) who has

- all the same weight;
- no incentive to lie;
- and an incentive to bet on the optimal value

(It is actually a really cool party game, take a transparent jar, fill it with beans, and then ask everybody to write down in secret the number of beans in the jar. And when all has done it read all the numbers, calculate the median, and then predict that the result will be very close to the median. Then count the bean. I did it in a bar with sugar cubes, and they were so impressed they did not even ask me to pay for all the sugar :-D ).

Some people, usually experts, will be very very close to the actual result. Maybe even close than the median. But (and this is a key element) you cannot predict who the experts that come so close will be. Do the same experiment twice or thrice, and each time the best expert will always be a different person. While the median will always be either on the spot or nearly on the sport. Every. Single. Time.

This is the magic of the "wisdom of the crowd". This is why doing it makes sense.

But notice something, for the "wisdom of the crowd" to work each person should have one vote. Deciding who are the experts, or who are the person who are more invested and giving them more vote does not increase the probability that the median reaches the results. If it does something it biases the result in favour of the people more invested making the median slide further away from the optimal result.

Similarly letting people see how other people voted tend to bias the result making the wisdom of the crowd oracle less precise.

I am a masternode owner, and I am about to turn on a second masternode. This will give me the possibility to vote twice.

So here is my suggestion. I think people who own multiple masternode should vote only once. Unfortunately letting people who have multiple masternodes vote only one time is a non trivial problem. One idea could be to ask a proof of individuality from each masternode. But this has privacy problems, as well as security problems (what if someone decides to abduct the masternode owners? Or a government decides to arrest them?).

So I would like to suggest a different solution. People who own multiple masternodes should have an economical incentive to declare it. And then they will only be allowed to vote once for all the masternodes, but in exchange for this they will earn a bit more for each masternode they own. Right now a masternode will give you about 1.8. Maybe when a person has multiple masternodes set up together it could give 0.1 dash more.

0.1 is just a work in progress example; Of course the actual value of how much should be evaluated with a vote among the masternodes; Great example of a situation where the possibility to vote a number and then taking the median, suggested by demo would turn out really useful.

So here is my suggestion:

**should people with multiple masternodes receive an economical incentive to always only vote once?**