0x13eef4ef…da33sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#25,065,434·view on Etherscan
community-weighted-voting-and-proof-of-personhood@0x0ED5...4277
Every season of nouns has had a main player/group that was able to capture enough votes to move the DAO in their direction. In one season even Nouncil was the main decider of if a prop would pass or not. (and it was not fun). Unfortunately the fundamental problem with democratic governance is collusion and misinformation to influence outcomes. (psyops everywhere)
It doesn't matter if votes are public or not. The beauty of token weighted voting is that it is fair. There is nothing stopping people from generating value and putting that into buying Nouns to earn more voting power if they want it. The reason why I have votes is because of this. And voting power based on token weight can be _good_ because those people tend to have more skin in the game and are likely to think deeply about how they vote. Of course that can be gamed too, but the DUNA, nounder voting block, lack of a fork really makes it a dumb idea to try to attack the DAO
> Humans are humans… We all see where prediction markets are heading, so yeah, I agree Futarchy is entering utopian territory at this point.
>
> On anonymous voting, I agree too. There’s a reason most modern democratic constitutions protect secret ballots as a core principle.
>
> On Proof of Personhood: what’s the right balance between UX simplicity, privacy, and actual human-vs-agent guarantees? I like Human Passport, already used by Giveth, TheDAO. Feels lightweight while still useful. Curious if anyone has better alternatives though.
>
> On the first two questions:
>
> 1. I don’t think “tyranny of the majority” becomes an issue in a community-weighted voting system. Wallets can still hold multiple Nouns = multiple votes. But right now, if I’m supported by 20 nouners holding 2 Nouns each, but opposed by 2 nouners holding 25 Nouns each, it feels weird to say “the DAO rejected the prop”.
>
> Now imagine a system where 5 voters gives a x1.5 multiplier, 10 voters x2, and so on. That could counterbalance the plutocratic degeneration of the DAO without going full 1 person = 1 vote, which is really the only setup where an actual “tyranny of the majority” scenario emerges.
>
> 2. It’s important to prevent a single person from managing multiple wallets, distributing their Nouns across them, and effectively gaming the community-weighted voting mechanism. So you need 1 human = 1 wallet.