Design of voting rules?

How to design better voting rules?

For example

  • the square root voting method
  • Time-locked weighted voting method

Let’s discuss together

3 Likes

A scheme where whales power can be balanced out is preferable

3 Likes

The common wisdom of East and West

(请参照下面的中文翻译本)

Some general thoughts on how we can approach voting…

Quorum thresholds:
More drastic changes to the protocol should require higher supermajority %, while less drastic change to the protocols, should require a smaller majority %.

For example, proposals that alter YFII emissions, or how YFII works in governance should require higher quorums, opposed to “lighter” proposals such as website design changes, or exchange listings.
How we decide on the required quorum % requires some further consideration.

Alternatively, we could borrow ideas from Polkadot’s “adaptive quorum biasing”:

The main idea from this article is: if voter participation is low, the percentage of votes in favor will need to be high in order to pass the proposal.

Conversely, if voter participation is high (e.g. 100% of YFII holders vote) then the quorum requirement is only 50%.

Vote Weighting
I think time-lock voting is beneficial for allowing voters with conviction to voice their opinion more strongly, however this may give larger voters too much voting power.
With this point in mind, perhaps some combination of both time-lock and square-rooting votes would help here, e.g:
log(days_locked * number_of_yfii), or
sqrt(days_locked * number_of_yfii)

Also, if there are proposals with multiple options we could also investigate voting mechanisms such as approval voting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

For a survey of different voting mechanisms , I encourage you guys to look through the following voting mechanisms here and discuss their merits.

For more details of how these voting mechanisms work see (warning: it’s a bit academic):

########################################################

关于如何进行投票的一些一般性想法…

法定人数
对协议进行的较大更改应要求多数人的同意,而对协议进行的较小更改只需要少数人的同意。

例如,更改YFII发行的提案或YFII在治理中的工作方式应要求更高的法定人数,若是更改网站和 exchange listing 这种较小的事情就不需要太多人来决定。
我们如何确定所需的法定人数可以以后再讨论。

或者,我们可以借鉴 Polkadot 的想法 “adaptive quorum biasing”:

本文的主要意思是:
如果选民的参与度很低,为了通过提案,需要提高选票的百分比

相反,如果选民参与度较高,则法定人数要求较低。
(例如,如果100%的YFII持有人投票,则法定人数为50%)

投票权重
Time-lock voting 是一个好主意,它使有信念的选民可以更有力地表达意见,但是,这可能会使较大的选民拥有过多的投票权。

考虑到这一点,也许是 time-lock voting 和 square-rooting votes 的某种组合, e.g:
log(days_locked * number_of_yfii), 或
sqrt(days_locked * number_of_yfii)

此外,如果有多种选择的提案,我们还可以调查投票机制,例如
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

为了对不同的投票机制进行调查,我鼓励大家在这里仔细阅读以下投票机制并进行讨论

有关更多详细信息,请参见:

4 Likes