staking could also be a good way for the foundation to get more funding. As they can also participate in staking their coins and even run a staking service where a small fee is charged.
And offcourse staking should not increase the rate of inflation.
Delegated staking can also improve voting. The staking service can vote for all the delegates. If a delegate doesnt agree they can simply switch to another staking provider
This increases the amount of votes cast in any voting. Whilest simplifying it for non technical people
About point 4:
Inflation is lowering quite fast actually. Only the first year we see a massive increase in tokens. 20% of the supply before mainnet is added in the first year.
Aboutn point 1
We do need a clear way to define the voting
About point 2
I partially agree
About point 3
Staking seems good
Performing contract calls should also be rewarded to stakers
Oracle calls should be paid to stalkers too
About point 4
Inflation should be fixed asap, the least you can do is ask if it was a bad decision and see what the community says. But i think a predictable and more linear way of doing rewards is better in the long run, rather than this curve.
Extra point 1
It would be nice if we could vote on what to implement next, like voting on what -one thing- the community wants implemented next. This would give the community a way to say this is community driven.
I think there two ways to address the question of “voting process”
Procedure to decide a custom voting procedure for each vote (before it begins, as part of the discussion process), or
decide on a voting approach for all upcoming votes
I think in this early stage, it will be a combination of the two. I see that some people did not like the BRI voting process, so let’s see if we can come up with a better one. I already see a discussion on this. I believe the best way forward could be a two/three step voting procedure, where users are able to vote on a wide variety of things, including “yes”/“no”, and multiple options, at the same time and with only just a few steps.
Most importantly - voting MUST NOT be complex and shouldn’t take much longer than what was needed for the BRI. Two/three screens at most.
Point 2
That sounds weird to be and I can’t really understand how it can be done without a lot of complexity. We have used a few PR teams already and so far have not really seen them to be as effective as their budgets will suggest. What I can see is some kind of a bounty for getting good PR/marketing opportunities for aeternity. I see James from Telegram wants to get ae in CoinDesk. I am not sure about the details, but if this is something different from: 1. Check how much it costs. 2. Pay. we will be happy to discuss it.
Point 3
Staking means implementing PoS mechanism. I am not sure if this can be used only for voting or must also be used in consensus building for blocks. If it is the latter, moving from PoW to PoS will be a heated discussion. So far PoS variation are considered “work in progress” various people considering them superior or inferior to PoW. BFT PoS looks most promising, but such a fundamental change to the protocol will take a long time to implement (even if there was consensus that it must be done).
I know that delegation will soon be possible for aeternity governance as it is. This means that users will be able to delegate their token weight (no transfers of tokens) to any other users who is able to vote for them. I think this will take ae governance a step further, although the approach introduces a number of issues too.
I would suggest for the community to first decide on what they want to vote on, then how. A sample voting app for the new vote (based on the open-source BRI code for example) could be a great way to “exemplify” the vote and will be a great point of reference for any discussion.
This is how I see it:
Determine what will be voted on.
Propose a draft voting process and implement it in an aepp.
Share the aepp around and get feedback.
Incorporate feedback
Share the aepp again.
Finalize
Announce a voting period
Vote
Propose protocol change
Step 9 should happen at least two weeks before September 2 if the result of the vote is to be implemented with the next hard fork.
The curve is logarithmic and slows the inflation down. Currently there are about 300M coins. The curve yields about 550M in about 100 years (about 70% more inflation than present over 100 years). If you ask me, the bulk of damage from inflation has already been done. The current inflation will only be about the same amount that has occurred since main net launch spread over the next hundred years. A linear inflation rate would continue to go up even if the supply doubles or triples or quadruples… etc…
It would be nice to have a website with proposals in the queue. Everybody will be able to add a proposal and token-holders would be able to stake their tokens on it (it can be done using simple off-chain signing and an algorithm that will calculate staked tokens everyday let’s say to sum up results). It might be integrated with discussion board for every proposal and the proposal owner might be able to amend it based on feedback. Then the first proposal with the highest number of stacked tokens which reach a quorum can be pushed forward and upraised to another step. There can be quorum implemented on every step as well (as I proposed in the other post) like a moving average of tokens used in the last n voting events:
multiplier * average(no_of_tokens_voting(n), no_of_tokens_voting(n-1), ...) # where `multiplier` is let's say 0.5
To protect from DoS there might be a requirement that the token-holder must hold minimum number of tokens on their account used in voting and once it will drop below that mark, it will drop-out from monitored accounts used to calculate stacked tokens. Of course he can vote again once he will have required number of tokens in his account.
If you know https://stackoverflow.com/ I would say that proposal and voting system may borrow some ideas of the UI and UX from it. There could be a proposal subject and token-holders can discuss about it and up-vote to move it higher using their tokens. Maybe it can be a down-vote feature as well, so if somebody is against subject and want to move it down the queue (which doesn’t mean it will be rejected, just waiting somewhere in the queue).
I think the best option would be to build a centralized application with off-chain signing and decentralize it gradually using state-channels if there will be big community demand.
PS.
Actually such a website with proposals may collect off-chain and on-chain votes. Off-chain votes are basically signed messages by private key. People that don’t trust such centralized website may want to vote on-chain (paying tx fees). So it will be hybrid voting website (on/off-chain). Every stake-holder will afford participation even those with tiny account balance, also they can change their vote realtime at no cost. This way voting will be scalable and transparent. All of this until a decentralized state-channel voting system will be built.
Such a website may also incorporate an idea of delegates. There might be profiles and other people might choose their delegate and the delegate will vote in in behalf of others. That might increase level of participation as well as people can choose a delegate less frequently. Similar system works in dPoS, here we have delegated voting system (dVS?), delegated proposals system (dPS?), delegated governance system (dGS?) or whatever you call it.
I have been reading Eric Posner & Glenn Weyl’s, Radical markets (still at the start), and really think that implementing something like quadratic voting would be great to foster participation, and get a better representation!
Quadratic voting, at least the version proposed in the Radical Markets book, relies heavily on the availability of a strong identity system, which is not yet available for any decentralized platform, as far as I know.
No unique mapping from preferences into outcomes is fair for all situations. No matter which aggregation method you use to map votes to outcome, someone will always be disadvantaged. And the ability for someone to choose the aggregation method is already a way to bias the outcome.
With that being said, I agree that it would be nice for the voting system to be more flexible but no matter what you come up with, it will always have disadvantages. It could be a tyranny of the majority, require such high thresholds that the systems ends up paralyzed or anything in-between.
Does that community include people who are currently mining AE? Do they also prefer proof of stake over proof of work?
But aside from that, I personally think proof of stake is probably the better way going forward and I am considering to write a proposal for a PoW/PoS hybrid. Which was advertised on the website for the longest time, although it meant something completely different in that context
I’d like to not just change the inflation but also change the payout schedule.
Anyway, I think that all of these proposals each deserve their own threads.
@bruteforce.chain@ssh
re quadratic voting old discussion:
Vitalik just proposed to combine random sortition with quadratic voting. This seems (as he posits) to mitigate the lack of a robust DID currently.
I agree, in that if the sample is large enough, a random selection of voters could bring out a real representation of the initial sample regardless of sybil attacks:
