#self-governance

• 

  Intro into optimizing particl's self-governance (voting procedures)
  • Pancake  

  8
  3
  Votes
  8
  Posts
  89
  Views

  

  So, dear community, let’s start the discussions onto this particl self-governance topics I hope the first topic to discuss 1-(J), is one of the more “easy” topics, because we already voted for the forum as self-governance communication platform, and now trying to figure out it’s pro&cons. At the very end of all those points to discuss (1-(J), … 14-(-C-)), there should be a kind of document as outcome, which describes a possible way to “govern” our community discussions. I will use therefore a dropbox paper, like dros has proposed as proposal template here. You can also see an example here. I personally, won’t post messages on self-governance on the discord community-proposal channel anymore. I made some screenshots up until the beginning of march, to document the previous discussions on discord, which can be found in the previous post. So please also give your feedback and replies exclusively on the forum, since postings on discord or telegram won’ t be forwarded to the forum anymore. Thanks for making this community a warm and welcome place in sharing your opinions on the possible future of a community driven, self-governing, decentralized, worldwide, private marketplace !
• 

  List of references (voting & governance)
  • Pancake  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  44
  Views

  No one has replied

• 

  Outcome of 1-(J) to 14-(C)
  • Pancake  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  50
  Views

  No one has replied

• 

  12-(K) - Validity/Lifetime of voting decissions
  • Pancake  

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  47
  Views

  

  Since Particl is a blockchain-project it would be the first choice to document valid governance decissions inside a block on the native blockchain. What other thoughts on that?
• 

  13-(I) - Notification on altered or updated proposals
  • Pancake  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  27
  Views

  No one has replied

• 

  14-(C) - False winner with multiple voting options
  • Pancake  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  35
  Views

  No one has replied

• 

  11-(F) - Small bag holders may be discouraged to vote
  • Pancake  

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  39
  Views

  

  This topic already has been tried to answer with topic 5-(B). Outcome of 5-(B) discussions has been as follows: – they can delegate their voting power to e.g. staking pools – a grading curve shall reduce the voting power of very large balances (measures to be taken to prevent that large balances easily can be split up into many smaller balances) Does anybody have other ideas to address this issue?
• 

  10-(M) - "Sub-Communities" can express their voting recommendation
  • Pancake  

  7
  1
  Votes
  7
  Posts
  86
  Views

  

  @cryptoborshch we will move away from direct democracy, to a representative one I personally prefer direct democracy, since having any form of representative one, the question of who may potentially being held responsible rises. So maybe we might have some form of elected delegates to debate on topics like threshold- or parameter settings, and also to provide some voting recommendations towards the community. The final voting then still have to be done by the token holders or e.g. their choosen staking pools. An easy way to assure that most community members and token holders become aware of the delegates “voting recommendation” will have to be defined.
• 

  9-(L) - "Identity Management" for proposal discussions
  • Pancake  

  6
  2
  Votes
  6
  Posts
  109
  Views

  

  Suggestion: We have to be aware that due to anonymity everybody might be able to game the system. So reputation should only be used for informal purposes, e.g. for proposal discussions. Reputation must be tied somehow to an user-ID (maybe marketplace-key). Several reputations could be collected for each ID: number of listings number of positiv/negtive rated sell/buy orders number of proposals created number of upvoted comments on proposal discussions … Since gaming is always possible I wouldn’t show the absolut numbers, but suggest to show on proposal discussions only the ranking of each user. Let’s say there are 4 different users commenting on a proposal. User 1: 20 upvotes User 2: 7 upvotes User 3: 725 upvotes User 4: 8 upvotes So based on the upvotes User 1’s characteristics for proposal upvotes would be shown as rank 2 of 4 (2/4), for User 2 (4/4), for User 3 (1/4) and for User 4 (3/4). If User 5 (36 upvotes) also adds a comment, this would change the ranking, e.g. User 1 --> (3/5), User 2 --> (5/5), User 3 --> (1/5), … If anybody tries to game this by creating multiple User-IDs the community could maybe downvote the corresponding users. I would also suggest to make this rankings time based. The older an upvote, the lower it’s impact on the ranking.
• 

  8-(D) - Repetetive proposals when denied
  • Pancake  

  11
  0
  Votes
  11
  Posts
  141
  Views

  

  @btmr said in 8-(D) - Repetetive proposals when denied: Ok, then let’s get rid of that damn second round for now Only to make sure we talk of the same voting causes. During final “voting period” there’s a “second” vote done by stake voting and outgoing transaction voting. During “proposal period” I still would do some preliminary selection or ranking, also based on a kind of voting (either funding or number of outgoing transactions), thus making it easier during “voting period” to distinguish between serious and spam proposals. Maybe you as voter during the “voting period” have only limited time and thus want only voting for the top 5 proposals and so ignoring the remaining x-hundred proposals. The benefit of funding I see in the increased amount of “skin” you can put into the game If you or any other community member think your proposal is really important to make a decision on, you can support it in an easy way with a significant amount of PART by one single transactions to the proposals specific address. When doing this by outgoing transactions with a fixed amount, you might have to send many transactions to signal your opinion of a high importance for this specific proposal. I agree, if one kind of ranking would be sufficient, it would be easier when not having the need for weighting in some form. Have a nice weekend
• 

  7-(A) - Freeze of coins
  • Pancake  

  4
  0
  Votes
  4
  Posts
  67
  Views

  

  With topic 5-(B) we came up with the suggestion to vote by an outgoing transaction. Would mean you send a defined small amount of PART from an address which contains a larger amount of PART which might represent the total number of your votes at a certain defined time. Apart from that, there may also be the possibility to vote only with your staked coins. In both cases there shouldn’t be the need to move and to freeze a large amount of your coins for voting purposes. But are there also other voting procedures we should take into consideration (pro&cons). E.g. the way how decred is doing their voting. Any other opinions?
• 

  6-(E) - Misinterpretation of "bad" formulated proposals
  • Pancake  

  9
  0
  Votes
  9
  Posts
  83
  Views

  

  I again summarized the points mentioned. I emphasized the need for a trustless long-time storage medium for each proposal. Thus I prefered to use the particl blockchain instead of any third party provider, as e.g. github. I will temporarily leave this topic up for discussion and will close then in a few days.
• 

  5-(B) - Security issue of coins
  • Pancake  

  22
  1
  Votes
  22
  Posts
  171
  Views

  

  I summarized the outcome of this discussions here, and will close this topic. In regard to staking voting I still want to refer to following link, https://hackernoon.com/voting-determines-the-conversation-how-to-think-about-staking-tokens-3f152185313a where also some issues being discribed which later might become of interest as well (e.g. 14-( C))
• 

  3-(N) - Backing proposals with parts/votes
  • Pancake  

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  50
  Views

  

  After finished the first two discussion points, I’d like to start on this third one. Shall we treat each proposal equally with the same importance, or shall we give the proposer, and those backing this proposal, a way to express the importance to vote and to put into effect of this proposal. What kind of “Backing” (funding) shall that be, maybe PARTs? Who will receive the amounts? Who will be responsible to distribute the funding depending on the voting outcome? What I personally could imagine, is that the funding can be used as a kind of ranking if there are multiple proposals to vote on. Those proposals with the highest fundings are displayed on top and thus are more obvious to potential voters. Those with low funding, will appear at the very end of a potential proposal list. Thus, potential proposal “spammers” will gain less attention unless they (or other supporters of the proposal) spend a certain amount of parts with their proposal. After the end of the voting period the “backing” parts could be sent to the foundation wallet or be used for other community purposes (e.g. as bounty for those executing the proposal). What is the communities opinion on that? Don’t hesitate to leave your comments and inputs.
• 

  2-(H) - Active proposal discussion for potential proposal correction
  • Pancake  

  4
  0
  Votes
  4
  Posts
  47
  Views

  

  I recently set up a proposal (200402-01) along the proposed proceedings in https://particl.community/topic/57/intro-in-setting-up-a-proposal-for-community-discussions. It seemed to work out pretty good and we havn’t got any other suggestions from the community so far. If there won’t be any other comments to come in on this topic 2-(H) I will summarize this discussion as follows, and then close this topic. “The proposer is responsible to open and to maintain for the duration of its proposal listing a discussion group (topic) on the community forum in the governance proposal category. He will have to follow the procedure as described here.”
• 

  Form for Community Proposals
  • Pancake  

  1
  1
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  24
  Views

  No one has replied

• 

  4-(G) - Distinguish votings based on their importance
  • Pancake  

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  35
  Views

  

  For “official binding” votes, particl foundation is planning a voting concept based on staking voting (or something similar, integrated into “Partyman”). However, for merely “informal” votes, we can already use the existing voting platform on particl marketplace. So we should make clear, that votings on the particl marketplace are only meant as “non-binding” votes and maybe can be seen as preliminary vote before a proposal becomes accredited as a later binding vote. Thus we could make a distinction between two kind of votes: informal votes binding votes What do you think? Other comments and feedback on this?
• 

  1-(J) - Commonly accepted communication platform
  • Pancake  

  12
  2
  Votes
  12
  Posts
  95
  Views

  

  Herewith I close this discussion and will sum the outcome as follows: Particl Community Forum will be choosen as primary choice for proposals and structured community discussions