Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
So i've been thinking about starting on actual blockchain projects, and I have a number of working ideas, and one of them is turning Dissensus into a DAO.
Now a DAO is a Decentralized Autonomous Organization, which just means group of people who need to coordinate some collective decision making. This collective decision-making can be embodied in smart contracts, algorithms that can handle data on a blockchain.
So it can be an interest group, an artist collective, a family, an asset management firm, a company, a nation of citizens, etc.
Any group of people that need to collectively coordinate decision-making. DAOs can allow for completely horizontal, programmatic governance. They can also be programmed to favor certain parties.
And I was thinking about how Dissensus could be represented as a DAO. I'm not sure what kind of decisions we would need to be making collectively, but that doesn't need to stop us from hypothesizing, and perhaps eventually experimenting.
The leaderboard thread relates this next part.
DAO governance is embodied by token distribution, which can be programmed from the offset, and the programming itself can be the subject of governance, i.e. voting on how to update the code.
So here is my initial formula for determining how many tokens each Dissensus member would get, in pseudo-notation:
Square root of number of posts x (1 + reaction score / number of posts)
in tighter notation, let n be the number of posts a member has made, and let r be the reaction score
(1+(r/n))√n
Haven't put in the actual numbers yet, as doing so would require having decided on a moment to base the count on, but I assume this would put @luka ahead of everyone else.
But, in theory, if there was someone who was below luka in post count but high enough above him in terms of ratio of reaction score to post count, his lead may be offset or even lost.
If I didn't add the 1 to the ratio of reaction score over post count, then the ratio as a multiplier would decrease the value of the post count.
And so a formula like this would determine the amount of DIS tokens each member would receive, and each DIS token would count toward that member's voting power. Again, I don't know what we would be voting on, aside from what the best pinhead meme is, where the best dogging location is, BPM required to break someone out of their capitalist-realist stupor, etc.
Aside from the distribution formula, we would need to determine the voting power per token as a function of the amount of tokens held by the voter. In the spirit of bottom-up governance, that is the spirit of blockchain, I suggest we take a logarithmic approach.
If the voting power per token was 1, we would have a linear function, wherein someone with 100 DIS would have ten times the voting power of someone with 10 DIS.
A linear function of voting power would look like this. Let $ be number of DIS tokens
f($) = $
If the voting power per token was logarithmic, as in the below, we would have a system in favor of small-cap voters:
f($) = log2($)
In the case of the above function, if you had 8 DIS, you would have 3 votes.
If you had 16 DIS, you would have 4 votes.
If you had 32 DIS, you would have 5 votes.
If you had 64 DIS, you would have 6 votes.
[...]
If you had 1, 073 ,741, 824 DIS, you would have 30 votes.
etc.
So this means that the voting power per token drops off as the member has more tokens. The voting power is itself weighted in favor of the small guys, and thus the system is that much more difficult to game. The math can be changed so as to minimize the rate of dropoff of voting power per token.
The supply cap of DIS could determine the asymptote of voting power.
This is one of the reasons I'm always talking about blockchain. Also, I am presently intoxicated, but I believe the math bits are not problematic.
Now a DAO is a Decentralized Autonomous Organization, which just means group of people who need to coordinate some collective decision making. This collective decision-making can be embodied in smart contracts, algorithms that can handle data on a blockchain.
So it can be an interest group, an artist collective, a family, an asset management firm, a company, a nation of citizens, etc.
Any group of people that need to collectively coordinate decision-making. DAOs can allow for completely horizontal, programmatic governance. They can also be programmed to favor certain parties.
And I was thinking about how Dissensus could be represented as a DAO. I'm not sure what kind of decisions we would need to be making collectively, but that doesn't need to stop us from hypothesizing, and perhaps eventually experimenting.
The leaderboard thread relates this next part.
DAO governance is embodied by token distribution, which can be programmed from the offset, and the programming itself can be the subject of governance, i.e. voting on how to update the code.
So here is my initial formula for determining how many tokens each Dissensus member would get, in pseudo-notation:
Square root of number of posts x (1 + reaction score / number of posts)
in tighter notation, let n be the number of posts a member has made, and let r be the reaction score
(1+(r/n))√n
Haven't put in the actual numbers yet, as doing so would require having decided on a moment to base the count on, but I assume this would put @luka ahead of everyone else.
But, in theory, if there was someone who was below luka in post count but high enough above him in terms of ratio of reaction score to post count, his lead may be offset or even lost.
If I didn't add the 1 to the ratio of reaction score over post count, then the ratio as a multiplier would decrease the value of the post count.
And so a formula like this would determine the amount of DIS tokens each member would receive, and each DIS token would count toward that member's voting power. Again, I don't know what we would be voting on, aside from what the best pinhead meme is, where the best dogging location is, BPM required to break someone out of their capitalist-realist stupor, etc.
Aside from the distribution formula, we would need to determine the voting power per token as a function of the amount of tokens held by the voter. In the spirit of bottom-up governance, that is the spirit of blockchain, I suggest we take a logarithmic approach.
If the voting power per token was 1, we would have a linear function, wherein someone with 100 DIS would have ten times the voting power of someone with 10 DIS.
A linear function of voting power would look like this. Let $ be number of DIS tokens
f($) = $
If the voting power per token was logarithmic, as in the below, we would have a system in favor of small-cap voters:
f($) = log2($)
In the case of the above function, if you had 8 DIS, you would have 3 votes.
If you had 16 DIS, you would have 4 votes.
If you had 32 DIS, you would have 5 votes.
If you had 64 DIS, you would have 6 votes.
[...]
If you had 1, 073 ,741, 824 DIS, you would have 30 votes.
etc.
So this means that the voting power per token drops off as the member has more tokens. The voting power is itself weighted in favor of the small guys, and thus the system is that much more difficult to game. The math can be changed so as to minimize the rate of dropoff of voting power per token.
The supply cap of DIS could determine the asymptote of voting power.
This is one of the reasons I'm always talking about blockchain. Also, I am presently intoxicated, but I believe the math bits are not problematic.