Governance and Democracy within Safe Society


My sense of this, yes my intuition, is that it doesn’t work. The basis of that belief is that if you increase the cost to discourage gaming by the rich, you exclude more at the other end of the spectrum, so it is not clear whether this improves things or if it does by how much. Increasing the cost of gaining a vote could just as easily be anti democratising as it is anti corruption.

So the central point remains to be tested, will it be sufficiently effective as you propose? We obviously differ in our expectation. By all means provide some analysis to strengthen your argument. I’ve explained my reasons for doubting this several times now so I won’t repeat them.

The reason proof of unique human would help, if it could be achieved, is because it makes it harder to game. No doubt there - to game this, the rich person has to control other people’s votes which I suggest is harder than simply running more vaults, because to work it has to go undetected, and that’s hard as well as costly (you have to pay enough to persuade a lot of people to do something they are quite likely to disagree with).


In the same way as requiring more resources to farm a Safecoin would be excluding of some. How does waiting until you’ve farmed 3 Safecoin instead of 1 or 2 affect Democracy in any case? It only means a user will be waiting a bit before gaining rights. It would not affect any normal user - just those wishing to game the system.

Yes, that is true, and applies in just the same way to Maidsafe’s proposed farming algorithm.

Yes we disagree here.

My argument is not based on analysis as nothing yet to analyse - is the farming algorithm based on analysis btw?

The rich person does not necessarily have to do this. Said rich people could register say 10 “unique human” identities, get voting rights for all in perpetuity and not contribute any resources - how is this beneficial to the SafeNet?
Anybody even trying to game the system I proposed would be providing more and more resources in order to do this. This could be effected by raising the basic requirement to be every 3rd or 4th Safecoin farmed - meaning any bad actor would be paying any multiple you want for each vote - without impacting Democracy too much. It favours good actors and hinders the bad - just like the farming mechanism. :smile:


yeah, good joke :smiley:

How about the free market? Anybody can deliver a solution, anybody can buy it if he likes it… From my point of view, it’s the best way how to make all the decision making in a huge community. Monetary incentives are the right thing how to coordinate people.

You suggested democracy, its violent and involuntary enough by itself, isnt it?

If its not in the core, no problem for me… I am just not going to join your party :slight_smile:


I think this is the most important statement in the whole thread. In essence what you are trying to do is superimpose a structure of decisionmaking taken from a society of humans onto a realm in which completely different laws apply. Democracy and voting have a place in our world of autonomous decisionmaking humans. We are the ‘building blocks’ of our network so to speak, our brains and voices, feelings and needs make up the matter of this network. SAFEnet is a different universe or may as well be, governed by a different set of laws. While there is a connection to humans and their decisions, the ‘matter’ of this universe acts completely different. It’s like ‘memes’ in human knowledge that ‘travel’ or genes that ‘express themselves’ through the genome. It is a mismatch of ideas. Trying to connect the two this way will keep bringing up the same conundrum. This digital space will evolve by it’s own rules, voting and democracy are ill-suited for decisionmaking in a realm without discrete actors.


Even though I agree with your post as a whole, democracy is really not good for autonomous humans. Anarchy, or free market is. Democracy is good for those who don’t have their own brain, or for those who want to rule others. :slight_smile:


The free market is not the answer to everything, nor is it even applicable in the situation where a decision has to be made that affects the group as a whole. You are talking about an individual’s situation - not a groups.

The best way is for everyone in the group to do their own thing without concern for how their decisions affect/impact others? No…obviously not, groups make decisions for the group as a whole and individuals can only decide on things that affect themselves, not others - this is pretty basic reasoning I think.

By coordinate do you mean manipulate? Not everyone is primarily driven by money, there is the sense of community, building a better future etc.
This is clearly not something for anyone who doesn’t respect Democratic principles tbh. The idea is to pitch to the mainstream audience in order to attract more users - the vast majority of which do respect Democratic principles I think - probably about 90% I’d say. We can’t end up adopting a system that only a minority of the population agree with or even comprehend.
This is not one for the Anarcho Capitalists I would suggest.

Nice insult… I have my own brain thanks and have no wish to rule others - just plain wrong. :slight_smile: .


Agreed, altough looking at the state of the world today, makes me wonder that most seem to lack a brain, most people that vote find thinking really hard…coughtrumpcough…


Wow. First of all, this thread has so many openings for discussion.
I will line up some, later on go a bit more in depth, and maaybe, if I’m lucky, I’ll eventually get to the actual subject of the OP.

  1. Best platform for initial ideas?
    Something that has struck me, not only in this thread, is that creative thinking is very rapidly bogged down by hordes of … I don’t want to call them naysayers … but people that prefer the nitpicking part of the process, to be applied before the creativity has even got a foot hold… if you see what I mean.
    This leads me to think that for a many great deal of ideas, some initial free thinking in closer groups of people with the same rhythm in applying different strategies to the creative process, can cooperate in nurturing the ideas, and let nitpickers and other error-finding specialists have all the fun they want, when a few more steps has been taken in the process…

Maybe this already happens at large scale here, I don’t know. What I do know is that it seems a lot of thinking is thwarted early on, in what becomes long threads of discussions far from the initial ideas, loosing more and more participants (readers) the longer and more scattered they get (that is sort of an anti-democratizing power in effect, sort of).

Ok nuff said about that. This thread hasn’t gone all the way there, it’s just the tendencies are there.

  1. There is an idea of the perfect society. Cryptography is to some extent something “perfect”. Beautiful perfect math.
    A lot of discussions on these forums (on internet, among techies… and so on) about society, governance and in essence the relations between people, become rather fatigued by the misconception that the perfect beauty of our tools (cryptography for example) is something our societies can even come close. Societies, and democracy, is messy, because humans and human relations are messy, and that is the foundation of it. Not cryptography.

  2. Identity and SAFE network is a huge subject. I am thinking about it myself, how to combine these things, since SAFE net is so much about anonymity, and our societies are so much about identity. How do we build as much as possible of our society on the SAFE net (as so many in this community dearly wish). I cannot disagree more with Ron, who says that SAFE net is a different universe. That will make SAFE net obsolete, or at least will make it far less important to humanity than anyone here hopes. Any network with the ambitions of playing an important role in society, must be able to cater for the needs of the society. Unless we find away to abort ourselves from the need of identity, it seems that it needs to be implemented, somehow, in the network, within the processes of governance and democracy that are supposed to work on the network. This is true as far as the decision making is supposed to have any real importance to peoples lives. If the decision is not about something having real importance to peoples lives, real impact on their actual life, then yes identity is probably not needed.

But we’re talking about the big SAFE, the one that becomes a world wide network used by the whole world, not a tech hobby for a few, right?

Now… with the responses coming in here while writing this, I feel it’s necessary to look at my bullet #1 again.
Al Kafir, getting creative for real about governance and democracy, when half the thread is filled with comments from anarchists and total disbelievers in democracy, is not going to be a very easy imo.

Edit: I didn’t get to the OP stuff yet. I’ll be back.


No, democratic states can do some thing even better than the free market. For example, narrow roads are not so easy to build if you don’t have the right to confiscate. Also, warfare is not the strength of the free market. Collecting taxes, and legal kidnapping is much better tolerated in democratic communities than on the free market. :slight_smile: So yes, if you want any of the mentioned above, you definitely need something like democracy.

No, everybody should be concerned about the influence of his own decision on others. Otherwise, he could be seen as unfriendly, potential threat or even public enemy.

No, by coordinate I don’t mean manipulate… I just wanted to say, we are selfish by nature, its normal… And only capitalism and the free market can transform this selfishness into something creative and good for the whole society. Let me give you an example. For example, baker gets up early every morning in order to make money, not to feed the hungry. But eventually? :slight_smile:

PS.: Sorry for the insult, you probably don’t deserve it. Actually, democracy is mostly promoted by people who think they could live in the free market, but they want to help those without the brain by democracy…

PS2.: Why do you write democracy with big “D” every time? Do you really think it’s the best society arrangement ever invented as they told you at the elementary school?

PS3.: Sorry for the off-topic, mostly focused on politics philosophy… I already almost ended :slight_smile:


I know only too well what you mean and agree with the rest of your post… I was just thinking how frustrating this kind of thing is tbh :slight_smile:

This is the important bit, I also think that by creating an equitable online Society, the real world can learn and it could raise awareness and eventually systems that work could be mirrored in real life.
We need to largely cater for the mainstream not pander to every whacko idea out there, although providing a space for people to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others.
Thanks for your considered input and nailing the common recurring issue. It’s like wading through treacle sometimes… :smile:


Yes actually, well… better than any other invented system I’ve come across - not perfect in many of its implementations though, which is why I have tried to address the common complaints, such as regarding the tax system etc.
As I say, I think the vast majority of people would agree with democratic principles, this includes actual thinking people with brains. This is not something that is indoctrinated in elementary school like a religion or something… … :smile:
Anyway as we’ve established you don’t agree with democracy or governance and its not something you’re interested in…perhaps we can move on and discuss the actual proposal?


As the others, I see no chance to get 1 vote / 1 “real person”


You expressed that objection because the object of your system is to incentivise people to spend resources back into the community. Ex. tying votes to vaults as, as you put it, those who contribute resources get to vote. Ergo those who DON’T contribute resources don’t get to vote. So the emphasis is on contributing resources not having wealth.

Also if there is no stated purpose as to what the money is for then there is no “Society”. It’s basically a pot to do with whatever the community decides to do with it? Why would anyone donate money to that? Purpose is what binds communities together. You are first presuming people would want to have a government at all. You are second assuming they’d want to organize democratically.

No I’m saying creating a voting system is obsolete just like every other form of government is obsolete. We’ve created a perfect system and now you want to bugger it up with government. The SAFE network will work fine without your politics! Yes the wealthy people contribute too, as I demonstrated by pointing out that if you hold coin on the network the network adjusts.

Let me put this bluntly. I don’t want to have elections on SAFE. I don’t want a “SAFE Society” I especially don’t want to tie vaults to votes and do anything at the network level. First off it’s a security risk. I don’t want to know how many real human beings use SAFE. The less we know about vault owners the better. Second if there is a “SAFE Society” then that means we’re creating just another authority to manipulate control people. FORK THE NETWORK! If there is government on SAFE I say fork the network. One of the advantages to SAFE is there IS NO GOVERNMENT! If you want a government or something like it build it at the app level.

What would you be making decisions on? Say you made your democratic society. What would you be making decisions on? If we’re talking a legal system why are we talking something new. There’s already a bitlaw project covering polycentric law. Why is this even needed?

You’re missing the point. Not contributing resources is paying to vote. You didn’t help build the garden so you don’t get a say on what gets planted. You are paying with labor for your vote. So to continue the metaphor either you are saying those who don’t run vaults are not part of the SAFE community (even tho they may buy safecoin and use the network) and therefore do not get a say in what to “plant”. Or you are saying that one’s vote costs x amount of labor and only those with that amount of wealth can participate.

My solution? Don’t base voting on the contribution of resources. I don’t support the core idea. Human beings are not nodes.

I do not support having a SAFE Society as a whole. Communities yes, projects yes, coming together to DO something yes, building specific apps yes, coming together around a specific value or set of values yes, but simply because we all use the internet? No absolutely not. And I do not support the idea of having vaults tied to votes or anything at the network level. Perhaps an API to allow one to link one’s vault data to an MD data of some sort so one could create a vote coin based on whether one was a unique node or not but not something network wide.


In Europe, many countries have digital ids that can be used for legally binding digital signatures. One way to get a proof of unique human in those places would be to make an app where they could use an ID like that to sign a hash of their personal number or something like that. Then you would have the ability to connect a real ID to an account in SAFE, but you could still have the ability to use that ID for things like voting, but anonymously. Though, to make it completely anonymous you would have to have some way to do things without anyone else being able to link your actions to the personal number. I’m sure there is a way though.

Estonia allows non Estonians to get such an ID by sending a scan of passport and fill some forms, that could be a way for people living in countries without digital ids.

  1. This only incentivizes the use of government IDs.
  2. This doesn’t prove one is human, it only proves one has an ID in one’s possession.
  3. One can create multiple SAFE accounts.
  4. This would require the governments in question to be cooperative with the app developer to validate the legitimacy of IDs. Otherwise one could simply create a forged ID to game the system. This would mean the government would know specifically how many of it’s citizens were using the SAFE network, and who they were, at least if they were using this app. Therefore it compromises anonymity and becomes a security risk.

  1. Yes, but only a single time. You would have to use a government id and you would need some company to run the app that connects to the government servers etc, but it would be a one time thing, once it’s signed your SAFE account would be as valid as the government id.

  2. You’d use the personal number to prove you are a unique human basically. If someone has multiple citizenships, then maybe they could create multiple ids, but one ID should be enough to prove a citizenship at least.

  3. That doesn’t matter, you’d make it so one account can only be connected to one id/personal number.

  4. It wouldn’t necessarily require the governments to be cooperative. Many of these ID systems are made by private companies, and they’re generally open for companies to get an account with the system anyway. As I mentioned in point 1. it would require a trusted third party company to execute the step where you verify your account. Getting access to these systems costs money and you can’t just connect directly, you need an account set up by a company. That company would know who registered to the SAFE network, but I think it could be set up in a way so that’s the only thing that they would know. I imagine it should be possible somehow to set it up so that they wouldn’t need to now the SAFE Network account id of the user in question either, only if someone with that personal number has already registered an account. You’d do something like send a hash of your personal number. The company would have a private key that they use to sign that they have verified one personal number, so it could be checked if someone with that personal number has already registered an account. I don’t see how it can be a security risk if it’s known that someone has a SAFE account, any less than it’s a security risk knowing someone has a bank account, but not knowing the bank account number or any other details.


Because in some countries the government may make the SAFE network illegal similar to how they have outlawed the use of cryptocurrency in some countries. Thus if there was a handy register of people who were on the SAFE network all they’d need to do is go around and arrest everybody. Hence it would be a security risk. If you are engaging in activity that may at some point be outlawed you do not tell the government. Yes I’m sure the government could find out without such a database but it just makes it easier to round people up. It’s like a gun registration.

This identifies one within the system but doesn’t prove one is human. The system assumes one is human already. This is why having your ID stolen is such a problem and needs to be reported right away. There is nothing to stop one from simply stealing an id and entering in someone ELSE’S ID number.


These countries probably doesn’t have these kind of digital ids anyway.

It is a pretty good proof. If you want to steal someones id, you have to steal a physical device for them and you need to know the pin code. This would be unlikely to happen unless someone was robbed at gunpoint and forced to give up their pin code, but then they could just call and say their id was stolen and have it disabled within a short time.

If you enter the pin code wrong 3 times, the physical device is disabled and you can generally not get a new one in any other way than having it shipped to your government registered address.

The Estonian e-citizenship is probably what would be the easiest to fake, so it could be a challenge to get this system to work with countries that doesn’t have such ID systems implement and be guaranteed that it’s not a fake id.


This is done through a concept of free association. I can choose to voluntarily associate with groups whose actions and values I agree with and disassociate from those that I don’t. Since this concept allows people to vote with their feet, democracy or any other form of governance is unnecessary. The problem arises when we are forced to remain in a group that is not aligned with our interests.


This happens time & again in many places, this forum included.

There’s a relevant post I read recently about saying ‘yes, and’ instead of ‘no, but’:

There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging different opinions, but always try to construct and find solutions rather than tearing down before concepts get a chance to develop.

Hope the discussion is positive and productive towards some kind of framework, even if it’s 3 different competing visions based on various ideologies / assumptions.