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



  • If you have no clear opinion on a proposal, it’s sometimes good to have statements of “trusted third parties”, e.g. like the development team, or from other experienced marketplace users. Shall we make it possible to express them their voting decission as to give others a kind of “orientation” for their voting decission?



  • Similar to 9-(L), but this time on a rather non-cheatable and objective way, to express the voting proposal of a subset of known and identifiable community members (e.g. particl core devs, particl team members, particl foundation, …).
    Does anybody have an opinion whether it would be worth to collect and to state their proposed voting decision. If so, how could this be implemented?



  • Other crypto-projects tend to split their governance model into distinct DAO’s with distinct areas of responsibility.
    https://blog.synthetix.io/synthetix-foundation-decommissioned/

    I personally prefer for not having distinct DAO’s, but rather having the entire community of token holders to decide. By that you won’t have the problem of assigning responsibilities between the various DAO’s. Nevertheless, it sounds reasonable for having “expert teams” which provide their non-binding voting proposition to the community and their voting members.



  • @Pancake
    I prefer the proxy delegating model where I give the right vote to a specialist I trust as a specialist. )))



  • Hi @cryptoborshch
    Thanks for your reply. In another topic we had discussed the possibility to delegate the voting rights to dedicated staking pools. What do you think of this?
    I think in general we should give each token holder the possibility to decide by his own to which “specialist” he want to delegate his voting power or which “specialist” he want to trust most.



  • @Pancake
    In another topic we had discussed the possibility to delegate the voting rights to dedicated staking pools. What do you think of this?
    I met this management model in the crowdnode.io project for DASH owners.

    I like the voting rights “delegation model” how it was arranged in “Delegated Proof Of Stake” (bitshares/eos/cyber), but this may entail additional problems in development (functionality and security) and besides, we will move away from direct democracy, to a representative one (although it is considered more viable), and this is already a question of the concept of the project “particl marketplace”



  • @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.


Log in to reply
 

Creative Commons (CC) 2020 - Particl Community | Not affiliated with Particl Foundation | Powered by NodeBB