CIP — 1694: Can Decentralized Communities Make Superior Decisions?
After Town Hall Discussion hosted by Kenric Nelson (Photrek) and Stephen Whitenstall (QADAO)
Cardano Improvement Proposal — 1694: Can Decentralized Communities Make Superior Decisions?
After Town Hall Discussion hosted by Kenric Nelson (Photrek) and Stephen Whitenstall (QADAO)
Medium Article
https://medium.com/@photrek/cardano-i...
Cardano Forum Summary from Nicolas Cerny
https://forum.cardano.org/t/cardano-g...
Timestamps - Summary
Introduction - Kenric - 00:00
Sociocracy Techniques - 02:19
Active respondents volunteer to participate - 02:30
Background - CIP-1694 - Community Governance - 05:16
3 components to the proposed governance - 06:53
Earlier Photrek Research on One Coin One Vote (1C1V) - 07:38
Different Issues effecting Decentralizatised Communities - 09:04
Screen Share - Medium Article - 09:37
Graphs from presentation - 10:30
Dominance of Whale Holdings - 10:40
SingularityNET Deep Fund - Round 2 Voting Analysis - 13:01
Quadrant of DAO Threats - 14:08
Stake Pool Operation is not 1C1V - Why choose it for dReps ? - 15:10
Questioning Round
Questioning Round - 16:34
Ubio - 1) How does decentralization effect value in blockchain ecosystems ? - 17:20
Ed - 2) Can dRep stake limits mitigate plutocratic influence ? - 19:08
Eystein - 3) Does Quadratic voting matter more compared to how funds are spent proportional to ownership ?- 21:30
Ken - 4) What is the balance of power between different governance groups & what offsets undue influence of a particular party ? - 22:04
Responses - 23:46
Eystein's question - Decision parameters - Should Quadratic voting be applied in all or some cases ? - Kenric- 24:13
IOG response - Any other solution than 1C1V requires a identity solution - Kenric - 25:30
IOG prioritizing fundamental decentralization - Stephen - 27:30
Other Questions - 28:23
Response - Ubio - 1) How does decentralization effect value in blockchain ecosystems ? - Kenric - 29:53
Context - What value do Blockchains bring ? - Stephen - 32:04
Group Responses - 33:22
Centralization of power through process of 1C1V- Kenric - 33:44
Unstable power - Eystein - 33:50
Fluctuations in wealth will change who is in charge - Kenric - 34:24
Identity and Accountability - Kenric - 34:42
Is equal power given to all members of a community is a good thing? - Ubio - 36:26
Weakness of democracy (1 Person, 1 Vote) in decentralized blockchains - Kenric - 37:17
Measure of "Stake in the Game"- Kenric - 38:18
Quadrant of DAO Threats
Quadrant of DAO Threats - Kenric - 39:12
Government regulations that attack system & its operating ability - Kenric - 40:36
Centralized competitor makes decisions that diminish value - Kenric - 42:38
Overbearing bureaucracy that restricts individual autonomy - Kenric - 43:33
Is this framework useful ?
Is this framework useful ? - 45:22
Role of Binance as a threat - Ubio - 46:11
Importance of staged approach - Ed - 48:20
Large range of identity options - Ed - 49:47
Community needs more voting methods - Eystein - 51:38
Clarify use of governance actions. Different incentives alter voting behavior ? - Ken - 53:05 Heterogeneity of decision-making - Stephen - 54:52
Time to voice community opinions ? - Ken - 56:20
Community response to CIP-1694 ?
Community response to CIP-1694 ? - Kenric 56:37
Who is the Federation ? - Jonathan - 59:39
Recommendations to modify CIP-1694
Recommendations to modify CIP-1694 - Kenric - 1:07:49
1) Constitutional Council based on sociocratic principles.
2) dReps’ should be Quadratic voting.
3) Saturation / limit on multiple stake pools.
Support Quadratic voting for dReps - Ubio - 1:08:40
Role of Stake Pools in CIP-1694 ? - Ed - 1:10:00
Tripartite nature of governance - Kenric - 1:10:41
Mechanisms of social pressure - Eystein - 1:12:07
Challenges of DIDs - Ken - 1:14:19
What credentials do we need & who do we trust to issue them ? - Ed - 1:16:08
Interests of community versus other stakeholders - Tegegne - 1:19:06
What is the purpose of the DID in this context ? - Ken - 1:22:26
Hybrid methods - Ubio - 1:24:06
Diversity of decision making - Kenric - 1:26:12
What is the commons ? - Stephen - 1:27:34
Next steps - Kenric - 1:28:43
dRep credentials - Ed - 1:30:15
Demonstrate how quadratic voting is better - Eystein - 1:32:05
Voice our concerns - Ubio - 1:35:33
CIP Editing - 1:36:22
Conclusion- 1:39:13
Refererences
Scheidel, Walter. (2018). The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691183251/the-great-leveler
Anon Chat content
Community "skin in the game" is not represented in Wallet "Skin the game".
I feel like the next evolution of the communities in Cardano is to understand and share meaning around "trust registries"...the mechanisms which issue and legitimate DIDs (not validate, which is a technical term related to DID protocols)
Yes - DIDs could play a role in resolving these structural assymetries
I suspect DIDs will just 'show' that we have resolved asymmetry...underlying them must be symmetrical communities...maybe its a bit chicken/egg.
Interestingly, this doesn't even mention ADA being a governance token: https://cardano.org/what-is-ada/
If it emerges as a gov token, is this emergence a good thing? Bad because it wasn't part of the plan?
Should a smart contract be able to delegate to a dRep that is a smart contract? Is there any proof of humanity/personhood?
From what I remember, there were some discussions around wallet activity monitoring and retiring DREP certificates but from I’m not sure about proof of livelihood.
Similar consideration as the question "Is a company a person ?" - or can sovereignty be collective ?
Do we really think that equal power given to all members of a community is a good thing? Does decentralization necessarily mean equality of power and voices?
Depend what power means in this context ?
Power is the ability to influence action
Alternative framing of the question: can a commons be sovereign (in some respect...maybe not all respects?)
Absolutely - but should everyone influence everything ? What about interests and capabilities ?
"influence"....🤔
I would think power would need a more direct mechanism than influence to cause action...force seems to be a requirement, and maybe what we mean by power is that the person with power also controls the accountability framework...so they have sequestered the feedback loop to themselves...
Just thinking out loud🤔
In principal- agent terms a lot of chains act like securities or public companies - maybe the SEC will use that line of argument ?
ya these are equal questions I do have, I don't think its fair for people to have equal power to influence everything, especially things they don't have interest and capability in.
Implementing some sort of reputation mechanism would be an ideal solution.
"I would think power would need a more direct mechanism than influence to cause action" Never underestimate the power of the eminence grise 😁
The SEC will also argue that they have a responsibility to mitigate exposure to risk
More voting methods or less reliance on voting
Thats a good perspective
Your reference to risk of US withdawal made me think of it
How about more voting and less reliance on voting, using it more for direction
Voting abstracts Social Choice - direct participation makes it concrete ?
In Polkadot you have conviction voting, locking your tokens for a longer time increases their voting power.
Creating a DID is like creating a private key. It is the verifiable credentials, which are issued to the DID, as well as the trust in the issuer of the credential that really matters. Beyond signing/cryptography and other technology, it is the trust of the Verifier in the Issuer (or trust registries of trusted issuers) that really matters, and that is the hard part of SSI. As a bootstrap matter for Voltaire, the Federation is basically trusted, so they could collectively identify entities that would issue some basic credential, e.g. "Qualified to be a dRep for a period of time".
In an ideal collaboration system we would never have to vote on anything.
"No Governance without Sovereign ID" could be the slogan !
"What Ostrum found ... there exists a certain community size below which people act as collectivists ... such a commons cannot be too large " etc - from Taleb "Skin in the Game"
I think one of the things we can do in that individual way, is to challenge the language used. I often see CIP-1694 being described as "democratic"...
ya that's the language often used, "democratic" its our responsibility on an individual basis to see how plutocratic this is as well
Last updated