Natural delegation on DAO voting #34
Voting on compensation requests (or more general proposals) requires time and expertise to evaluate the proposal. If the voter does not have sufficient time for due diligence it leads to a better total vote result to not vote rather that to follow how others have voted or to vote based on "feeling".
Best would be if we could delegate vote to others where we know they are more expert or familiar with the request but that is not planned for the first version of the BSQ/DAO due to added complexity and effort (it might be added at some later stage). But we could gain a similar effect if those who are not experts on the subject and/or do not spend sufficient time to evaluate the proposal cast their vote as zero and therefore give those who do vote more relative voting power.
Of course it is important to emphasize that any BSQ stakeholder can vote on whatever they like—but they should keep in mind that the goal of voting is to make the best management decision for the project (and their BSQ stake represents the share of the overall value of the project). So anyone is welcome to become expert and spend enough time to be able to meaningful valuate others proposal, though if that is not the case then it is better for the project to not vote and leave it to others who can fulfill that.
I think many proposals have usually only one or two other contributors who work with them more closely or who are closely familiar with the field the contributed worked on.
Please give a thumbs up or thumbs down if you support this proposal as a general guideline or not.
referenced this issue
Jul 30, 2018
Implied in @ManfredKarrer's text above, but worth calling out explicitly is that voting zero by default allows the voting process to scale up with integrity. For the last nine months we've had basically every contributor voting on every contribution request, and everyone virtually always votes
In reality, I doubt that every stakeholder actually reviewed every contribution request in detail every time, and that some degree of "well, everyone else voted
In this way, when a contributor reviews the results of voting for their compensation request and sees, for example, that all or the vast majority of stakeholders voted
Having just voted for this month, using
The delegation of votes must happen somehow or the DAO won't work. I wonder how to judge requests where I only partially know the details. For example, I might know in detail about half of a request but not know anything about the other half. To vote
Another thought that struck me is that if the break between proposals and voting phase is short someone can add a request late in proposals phase giving little time to comment before voting starts. Once voting starts it's less likely someone who has already voted would go back to look at a request to see if there are new comments. If
@sqrrm There is the quorum to make issuance by self vote only of new contributors hard. We can make the break a day or so, also the voting will take about 3 days. i also assume that there will always be at least one "senior" stake holder who will check the request out. There are diff. areas and all areas should be covered by one who feels more responsible and therefore will look into any request which falls in his/her area.