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No I’m saying creating a voting system is obsolete just like every other form of government is obsolete.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.