A more proper way to vote in decentralized communities

[Ucy]

Below is one of many ways to prevent voters from voting dishonestly on a decentralized community:



If you think a Blockchain vote can be very reliable, you need to think again. People can be influenced by alot of things, like emotion, biases, central entities, money etc

There should be reward for "good votes". And there must be strict rules/principles every voter should depend on when voting. Voters have to be sure that what they are voting for are (and will be) completely loyal to the decentralization rules/principle before they cast their votes. This is for the sake of safety and security of users and allegiance to rules or principles of decentralization.

Voters need not to cast only the votes, but also provide convincing proofs why their preferred candidates(anonymous candidates) will adhere to the vital decentralizion principles or rules. Other voters and experienced members can always comment below every votes on the election period with proofs why voted candidates do or do not deserve to be elected. It's left for the owners of the vote to withdraw or keep their votes when they see the proofs below their votes. Convincing proofs can weaken the vote power of votes cast if the voters refuse to withdraw them, and the owners of the votes could gain some negative trust. The good votes will have more vote powers whiles their owners receive some good score. I believe this will help make people vote intelligently and not emotionally.

 The reward should be in form of reputations. If a voter continues to vote wrongly, he/she will be temporarily excluded from future vote, while still having his bad voting reputation.

[1715275251]

1715275251

[1715275251]

1715275251

[1715275251]

1715275251

[1715275251]

1715275251

[Artemis3]

Voters need not to cast only the votes, but also provide convincing proofs why their preferred candidates(anonymous candidates) will adhere to the vital decentralizion principles or rules. Other voters and experienced members can always comment below every votes on the election period with proofs why voted candidates do or do not deserve to be elected. It's left for the owners of the vote to withdraw or keep their votes when they see the proofs below their votes. Convincing proofs can weaken the vote power of votes cast if the voters refuse to withdraw them, and the owners of the votes could gain some negative trust. The good votes will have more vote powers whiles their owners receive some good score. I believe this will help make people vote intelligently and not emotionally.

 The reward should be in form of reputations. If a voter continues to vote wrongly, he/she will be temporarily excluded from future vote, while still having his bad voting reputation.

What is the point of voting for people do to only what you want, when you could vote for doing the things you want in the first place? Why do you need a candidate to act like a robot, when you could make the choice directly? If you already have the technology to cast votes, you could also do direct government.

Wherever this is good or not, its another debate. But robot candidates (robot is a portmanteau of slave) are pointless.

Your system of reputation would then require meta reputation, i don't think this is good...

[andy.bandy]

I want to have decentralized exchanges more than a community, but many people still use centralized exchanges, don't know how we can change this.

[Ucy]

More below (first posted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5263883.msg54850600#msg54850600 )

[July 22, 2020, 07:48:51 Pm]

In regards to *number one* (Earn $BREE for holding DeFi assets), does it mean if you don't hold those defi assets you won't be able to fully participate in governance? What is the minimum amount of the DeFi assets are needed to participate in governance?

*Number two* (Earn $BREE for proposing/voting) sounds good in my opinion. Maybe  make it optional for those who don't have defi assets. Defi assets holders will probably just stake & earn more tokens/coins for merely holding.
I think everyone should be able to participate (whether staking or not), make valuable contributions and earn rewards/coins/tokens for their contributions.

By the way, why impose limits (with the use of delegate governors) on those who can propose new ideas? If it's for quality reason, why not allow everyone to propose ideas on "Unfiltered section", then the best ideas on the Section automatically get moved to Filtered or Main section?

Majority of the community members simply do not care about these governance protocols. They are only after those sweet yields.

 To attract lots of quality participants/contributors, my incentive or reward models would be to rank participants up according to the value of their contributions, how long they participate with the community etc...
As participants rank up in the community, you keep promoting or granting them additional privileges, opportunities, increased earning power on their contributions,  etc..

Reputation/trustworthiness can also be used to incentive participants. This will ad to their overall decentralized Network/Blockchain  reputation

I think every good contribution by all members should be rewarded. The community could create lists of agreed rules and principles and automatically reward members who do not break them during  their important community contributions. Members should automatically earn rewards after being active doing something useful or contributing to something good, but if someone or bots downvote you for breaking some rules/principles (with proofs), you lose part of the rewards, depending on the seriousness of the rules/principles violated... both the upvoters and downvoters would be rewarded manually/automatically based on the accuracy of their votes, or better still based on the correctness (with proofs) of the reviews left by the upvoters/downvoters.
There should be very qualified/honest/accountable people who give their final verdicts on the reviews after verification and canceling of wrong or undeserved downvotes/upvotes... Rewards can then be distributed to participants after the final assessment is completed