I’ve been thinking about all these areas since the start really, trying to take on board all the more substantial arguments from both the Left and Right, Liberal and Libertarian points of view etc. I’ve been trying to figure out the best way forward on future Governance and also how to give the Community more responsibility for what gets built, what decisions are made etc. I came across @TylerAbeoJordan 's recent post and received an invite but thought I’d better put my advice as a post in itself as I’ve quite a few thoughts/ideas which relate but I don’t want to disrupt the other thread.
I think the basic idea could be enlarged to create a functioning Safe Society. (I may need some technical assistance here though…lol).
Ok…what I think the “holy grail” for myself personally and what I also think a lot of projects are aiming for is a whole functioning online Society – in the most equitable way possible. This commonly involves “ICO’s” for “DAO” type entities, but these all have common problems, which different projects try to address in various (non-optimum) ways.
(I believe we could optimise things and potentially form a Community collaboration with Maidsafe which could hopefully create quite a symbiotic relationship essentially.)
I could go on a bit here, as quite a few thoughts and not sure how best to start/structure to lessen my words…maybe I’ll just do a Q and A with myself I think…
- What would the ultimate DAO on SafeNet look like?
To my mind, it would involve the most people being the most involved, invested and directing of the project – and not skewed towards the wealthiest.
The ultimate DAO would in effect be a direct Democracy of sorts, with all voters/users/citizens having an equal share I believe.
The ultimate “DAO” is the citizens’ investment in the Society it creates, as I see it.
- So what’s the problem with ICO’s in relation to DAO’s?
Well, primarily it tends to lead to the “Whale” problem where power/wealth/votes etc gets concentrated among the few. This type of coin issuance would not be suitable for use in any future form of voting/Governance/Democracy.
- What would the optimum method be instead of ICO?
The optimum method would involve distributing coins/votes/power as equitably as possible among contributing users/citizens/voters. The optimum would be 1 person 1 vote, the vote backed by Safecoin. As votes are cast, Safecoin are collected, creating a “DAO” fund in effect. This would be small to start with, but could be the acorn from which to grow the Oak.
- How do we ensure voters are real people – won’t we have to use some web of trust or similar solution and maybe have to compromise anonymity?
I don’t think so. For the purposes of the SafeNet, we can substitute 1 vault - 1 vote for 1 person - 1 vote. This is due to the properties of the farming mechanism which mitigate the risk of concentration of power. We don’t need to know who the voters are, just that they maintain a vault.
- How do we achieve optimum distribution and ensure that only those contributing to Safe Society have a fair say? How do we prevent the whale problem and stop all the wealth/power concentrating to the top 1%?
The only way I see to do this is to involve a slight change to vault/wallet code or create a secondary wallet. There are many other methods I’m sure and the problem would seem to just be one of which solution to implement.
The key thing to my mind is that any vote/Dao coin has to be tied to the vault/farming mechanism in some way. This would ensure only contributors get the vote and power/democracy is as de-centralised/direct as possible, whilst preventing power concentration.
- Can you think of any feasible mechanism that you think might work, however sketchy, just as an example of how/what you are thinking?
OK, this is the bit where I need technical help…Let’s say that the 2nd farmed Safecoin (as an example) to hit each vault (or secondary wallet) can be sent to a smart contract (or coloured some other way) until used as a vote.
We could restrict in code to only 1 coin permitted to be held at any one time until a further amount of Safecoin is farmed. This would create a time delay between votes being able to be cast and ensure we are still dealing with a contributing member of Society before a further Dao/vote coin (its still a Safecoin actually remember) may be farmed.
This would seem to sort the whale problem out and de-centralise everything as far as possible.
- So we’d need a voting app for the vault/wallet to interact with – how would that work?
I would envisage a basic platform with choices such as A, B, C, D for which to send the
Safecoin. Only Safecoin farmed from the vault and nowhere else can be sent to the app. This method would also negate the need to create a specific “Dao” coin, so simplifies things.
Whichever letter receives the most votes has the others added to it and a smart contract carries out the instructions for colllected funds.
In the beginning, at Genesis, the options may be something like:
A) Save funds to build Community DAO forum on Decorum.
B) Repay the guy who built the voting app.
C) Donate to Al Kafir
D) Invest in 3rd World micro project.
In essence, what we would have created is a voluntary “community pot” in the form of a Dao without all the problems of ICO’s… This would seem to address the more legitimate complaints coming from those complaining about tax systems, such as the involuntary nature of it and having no say in what it is spent on. As votes are cast, Safecoin are accumulated to be spent however the Community decides.
- So what about governance – isn’t that something of a contentious issue with everyone wanting different ideological models?
Well, yes it is…so we have to take our cue from nature I think and let the SafeNet organism evolve however it is going to evolve. I’d say we have to have a starting point and that the best starting point would be the direct democracy model – if only to democratically decide whatever governance system we will eventually adopt.
I would suggest a sort of “People’s Parliament” or debating chamber on Decorum perhaps, from which the basic A,B,C,D questions can be established. The community could hear all the best arguments without fear of censorship, then decide.
- What are some of the main benefits from adopting this or a similar scheme in your view?
It would create a community pot/fighting fund and there is an obvious demand for this type of thing – see Bitshares, Steem etc. This also addresses common problems found, does things fairer and so would be more attractive to users and help attract a strong community spirited user base.
I think a mutually beneficial relationship between Maidsafe and the larger community can be grown over time and certain roles/responsibilities could be de-centralised from Maidsafe/Foundation (as appropriate) over time. It could be mutually supportive.
It would also appear to be better than anything else out there in most respects as far as I can see.
Anyway, just my thoughts if anyone wishes to discuss?