> If a proposal is boosted, the total voting token supply doesn’t matter at all, only the tokens involved in the vote are counted. That is, if merely three tokens out of a total supply of 1000 were involved in the vote, and two support the proposal—66% support—that’s enough to approve the proposal! So, stakers are not only betting on which proposals will eventually be supported and signaling voters towards them, but they are actually catalyzing the decision making process dramatically.
TLDR, a small amount of voters can basically hijack quorums by throwing tokens at the problem.
Also, what is with these "decentralized networks" which seem to have amazing amounts of money to throw at vaguely described problems, but can't seem to actually indicate where their money comes from or how they intend to profit? Aragon is yet another "we'll give you large sums of money if you use our platform" without clearly indicating the why or how of where the money comes from, and how they intend to profit.
> TLDR, a small amount of voters can basically hijack quorums by throwing tokens at the problem.
Users that upstake proposals risk losing their tokens at stake if the organization ends up voting in the opposite direction that they predicted. It's not completely resistant to gaming but it does make attempting to game the system riskier.
> Aragon is yet another "we'll give you large sums of money if you use our platform" without clearly indicating the why or how of where the money comes from, and how they intend to profit.
Aragon makes no claim of giving users "large sums of money", or any sums of money at all for that matter. The Aragon Association does give some grants to developers building open source tools for the Aragon ecosystem, and money for these grants comes from the proceeds of a crowdsale held back in 2017. There is no expectation of profit, as the Aragon Association is a registered non-profit.
> Almost by definition a proper solution to this problem should allow for decisions in a DAO to be made locally —i.e. with limited attention and voting power, as long as these decisions are ensured to be in line with the global opinion of the DAO. We’ve coined² this peculiar situation holographic consensus, being reminiscent of a hologram where every little piece of the picture actually contains the information of the entire image. In this article I’m presenting the holographic consensus (HC) solution for scalable, resilient and decentralized governance, describing its basics and how it is enabled. In the next post of this series I’ll continue with a more detailed prescription of a HC protocol, and will discuss its scalability and resilience properties.
A "DAO" is a "decentralized autonomous organization". The term isn't defined further than that.
In plain english, if I understand this, the idea is for a voting algorithm that allows a random or semi-random subset of an organization (a DAO) to make decisions for the group as a whole, so that not every member has to vote on every decision - like a kind of fancy algorithmic working group.
So it sounds like voting in this system would be similar to jury duty. Except better because the voters aren't selected at random and the algorithm makes sure they are the most representative possible group.
Upstaking sounds dangerously close to derivatives IMO, unless I'm understanding this all wrong, and derivatives were a big part of the global financial crisis
There is nothing particularly wrong with derivatives. They were just the vehicle used to commit a massive fraud on retirement funds. Like a truck full of boxed goods being shipped to a store, where the people packing the trucks were filling them with garbage (and occasionally drugs) and fronting the door with "real" product, then paying the inspectors to not even look in the back of the truck.
TLDR, a small amount of voters can basically hijack quorums by throwing tokens at the problem.
Also, what is with these "decentralized networks" which seem to have amazing amounts of money to throw at vaguely described problems, but can't seem to actually indicate where their money comes from or how they intend to profit? Aragon is yet another "we'll give you large sums of money if you use our platform" without clearly indicating the why or how of where the money comes from, and how they intend to profit.