If we want to advance this DAO we should start using a more scientific method to our decision making process. Thought quadratic voting and quadratic funding still need to be battle tested in real world problems I think that this is the kind of place where we could take a lead in Governance and start showing real leadership in the Ethereum space.
https://ethgasstation.info/blog/quadratic-funding-in-a-nutshell/
Looking for ideas and points of views regarding this.
I think this is a great idea, and an improvement over simple 1 token 1 vote system currently in place. It woulds take some tinkering to get the parameters right however, and I’m not sure if we haven’t already come to far with the current system to make such a change.
How would you make this sybil resistant?
Seems a simple sybil attack is for someone to split their YFI among multiple accounts then vote.
@barry good question. if your voting power decrease exponentially i thing that your initial funding is important to know to vote for something. For example:
If you have to optimize your voting power and you are less rewarded once you pass certain treshold that would encourage participants to use one wallet rathen than many and to really think how they use their influence.
What if you hold just 1 token, then the SQRT(1) is 1 vote, you could split your 100 tokens among one hundred addresses and vote (feasible via smart contracts). So before your voting power was 10 votes SQRT(100), now you have increased your votes by 10x.
Quadratic funding and voting doesn’t work without strong identity systems. It’d be neat if possible, but I don’t see how to do it on chain.
The part of quadratic voting that could work right now is vote deferral. ie: You can choose to defer your vote so that when a meaningful vote comes along you can use the votes there.
Closed since inactive. Feel free to reopen if this topic is still relevant.