remove buggy files
This commit is contained in:
parent
f9ca6019ff
commit
bd9d56cf4e
|
|
@ -1,82 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: |
|
||||
| **Conviction Voting**
|
||||
subtitle: |
|
||||
| A Dynamic Approach to Collective Decision Making in Decentralized Organizations
|
||||
date: \today
|
||||
author: |
|
||||
| Jeff Emmett
|
||||
abstract: |
|
||||
Conviction voting is a novel decision-making mechanism that aims to improve governance in decentralized organizations. By incorporating aspects of time and commitment, it seeks to overcome shortcomings found in traditional voting methods. This whitepaper will provide an overview of conviction voting, explain how it functions, and explore its advantages compared to other voting systems.
|
||||
numbersections: true
|
||||
secnumdepth: 2
|
||||
geometry: "margin=4cm, a4paper"
|
||||
bibliography: /Users/orion/Desktop/lit.bib
|
||||
link-citations: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Conviction Voting: A New Paradigm for Collective Decision-Making
|
||||
|
||||
**Table of Contents**
|
||||
|
||||
1. [Introduction](#introduction)
|
||||
2. [Background](#background)
|
||||
3. [Key Concepts](#key-concepts)
|
||||
- [Conviction Voting](#conviction-voting)
|
||||
- [Token Curated Registries](#token-curated-registries)
|
||||
4. [Implementation](#implementation)
|
||||
- [Setting Parameters](#setting-parameters)
|
||||
- [User Interface](#user-interface)
|
||||
5. [Advantages and Limitations](#advantages-and-limitations)
|
||||
6. [Conclusion](#conclusion)
|
||||
|
||||
<a name="introduction"></a>
|
||||
## 1. Introduction
|
||||
|
||||
As communities and organizations grow in size and complexity, making collective decisions becomes increasingly difficult. Traditional voting mechanisms, such as simple majority or rank-choice voting, often struggle to capture the nuances of a diverse community. Conviction voting is an innovative solution that seeks to overcome these challenges by allowing participants to express not only their preferences but also the strength of their convictions.
|
||||
|
||||
This whitepaper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of conviction voting, including its background, key concepts, implementation strategies, advantages, and limitations.
|
||||
|
||||
<a name="background"></a>
|
||||
## 2. Background
|
||||
|
||||
Conviction voting was first proposed by Giveth, a decentralized organization focused on building tools for the future of giving. The concept was inspired by the research of Jennifer Lyn Morone, who argued for a more nuanced approach to decision-making that takes into account the intensity of participants' preferences.
|
||||
|
||||
Conviction voting is a novel approach that combines continuous voting with token-weighted decision-making. It allows users to vote for multiple proposals simultaneously and continuously, while also taking into account their stake in the community and the duration of their support for each proposal.
|
||||
|
||||
<a name="key-concepts"></a>
|
||||
## 3. Key Concepts
|
||||
|
||||
<a name="conviction-voting"></a>
|
||||
### 3.1 Conviction Voting
|
||||
|
||||
In conviction voting, participants vote with tokens representing their stake in the community. The weight of each vote is determined by both the number of tokens and the duration of support for a proposal. The longer a participant supports a proposal, the more "conviction" their vote accumulates.
|
||||
|
||||
By continuously adjusting the weight of each vote based on duration, conviction voting creates a dynamic environment that incentivizes long-term commitment and thoughtful decision-making. This is in contrast to traditional voting methods that encourage short-term thinking and tactical voting.
|
||||
|
||||
<a name="token-curated-registries"></a>
|
||||
### 3.2 Token Curated Registries
|
||||
|
||||
Token curated registries (TCRs) are decentralized, community-driven lists of high-quality resources or assets. In a TCR, token holders collectively decide on the inclusion and ranking of items within the registry. Conviction voting can be used within a TCR framework to facilitate decision-making and ensure the quality of the curated list.
|
||||
|
||||
<a name="implementation"></a>
|
||||
## 4. Implementation
|
||||
|
||||
<a name="setting-parameters"></a>
|
||||
### 4.1 Setting Parameters
|
||||
|
||||
Implementing conviction voting requires the definition of several parameters, including:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Token**: The token used to represent stake in the community.
|
||||
2. **Conviction Growth Rate**: A factor that determines how quickly conviction accumulates over time.
|
||||
3. **Minimum Conviction Threshold**: A minimum amount of conviction required for a proposal to be eligible for funding or acceptance.
|
||||
4. **Proposal Funding**: The allocation of funds or resources for accepted proposals.
|
||||
|
||||
<a name="user-interface"></a>
|
||||
### 4.2 User Interface
|
||||
|
||||
A user-friendly interface is crucial for encouraging participation in conviction voting. The interface should allow users to:
|
||||
|
||||
1. View and submit proposals.
|
||||
2. Allocate tokens to support multiple proposals simultaneously.
|
||||
3.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,106 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: |
|
||||
| **Conviction Voting**
|
||||
subtitle: |
|
||||
| A Dynamic Approach to Collective Decision Making in Decentralized Organizations
|
||||
date: \today
|
||||
author: |
|
||||
| Jeff Emmett
|
||||
abstract: |
|
||||
Conviction voting is a novel decision-making mechanism that aims to improve governance in decentralized organizations. By incorporating aspects of time and commitment, it seeks to overcome shortcomings found in traditional voting methods. This whitepaper will provide an overview of conviction voting, explain how it functions, and explore its advantages compared to other voting systems.
|
||||
numbersections: true
|
||||
secnumdepth: 2
|
||||
geometry: "margin=4cm, a4paper"
|
||||
bibliography: /Users/orion/Desktop/lit.bib
|
||||
link-citations: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Conviction Voting: A Dynamic Approach to Collective Decision Making
|
||||
|
||||
## Table of Contents
|
||||
|
||||
1. [Introduction](https://chat.openai.com/?model=gpt-4#introduction)
|
||||
2. [Background](https://chat.openai.com/?model=gpt-4#background)
|
||||
- [Quadratic Voting](https://chat.openai.com/?model=gpt-4#quadratic-voting)
|
||||
- [Token Curated Registries](https://chat.openai.com/?model=gpt-4#token-curated-registries)
|
||||
3. [Conviction Voting](https://chat.openai.com/?model=gpt-4#conviction-voting)
|
||||
- [Concept](https://chat.openai.com/?model=gpt-4#concept)
|
||||
- [Algorithm](https://chat.openai.com/?model=gpt-4#algorithm)
|
||||
4. [Advantages of Conviction Voting](https://chat.openai.com/?model=gpt-4#advantages)
|
||||
5. [Case Studies](https://chat.openai.com/?model=gpt-4#case-studies)
|
||||
6. [Conclusion](https://chat.openai.com/?model=gpt-4#conclusion)
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Introduction <a name="introduction"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
Conviction voting is a novel decision-making mechanism that aims to improve governance in decentralized organizations. By incorporating aspects of time and commitment, it seeks to overcome shortcomings found in traditional voting methods. This whitepaper will provide an overview of conviction voting, explain how it functions, and explore its advantages compared to other voting systems.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Background <a name="background"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.1 Quadratic Voting <a name="quadratic-voting"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
Quadratic voting is a mechanism that allows participants to express the intensity of their preferences. It assigns a cost to each additional vote, making it increasingly expensive to vote in favor of or against a proposal. While it enables the consideration of minority preferences, it is still prone to manipulation and does not account for long-term commitment to decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.2 Token Curated Registries <a name="token-curated-registries"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
Token curated registries (TCRs) are decentralized, token-weighted lists that use economic incentives to curate high-quality content. While TCRs offer some improvements to decision-making processes, they tend to prioritize short-term gains over long-term vision, leading to suboptimal outcomes.
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Conviction Voting <a name="conviction-voting"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.1 Concept <a name="concept"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
Conviction voting introduces the concept of "conviction" as a measure of both the amount of support and the duration of commitment to a particular proposal. This system aims to prioritize proposals that have sustained support over time, rewarding long-term commitment and reducing the influence of short-term speculation.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.2 Algorithm <a name="algorithm"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
The conviction voting algorithm calculates conviction scores for each proposal using the following formula:
|
||||
|
||||
`conviction = (staked_tokens * (1 - (1 - α)^time_held))^γ`
|
||||
|
||||
Where:
|
||||
|
||||
- `staked_tokens`: The amount of tokens staked in support of the proposal.
|
||||
- `α`: A constant decay factor (0 < α < 1) that influences the rate at which conviction accumulates.
|
||||
- `time_held`: The duration for which tokens have been staked on the proposal.
|
||||
- `γ`: A constant that determines the non-linear relationship between staked tokens and conviction.
|
||||
|
||||
The proposal with the highest conviction score is deemed the most favorable and gets prioritized for implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Advantages of Conviction Voting <a name="advantages"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Long-term Commitment**: Conviction voting rewards long-term commitment to proposals, ensuring that participants are genuinely invested in the outcome of decisions.
|
||||
2. **Reduced Speculation**: The influence of short-term speculation is minimized, promoting more stable and well-thought-out decisions.
|
||||
3. **Inclusivity**: By allowing participants to express their support for multiple proposals simultaneously, conviction voting promotes greater inclusivity in the decision-making process.
|
||||
4. **Adaptive**: The conviction voting algorithm adapts over time, making it suitable for evolving decentralized organizations.
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Complementary Mechanisms
|
||||
|
||||
#### Quadratic Voting
|
||||
Quadratic Voting <a name="quadratic-voting"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
Quadratic voting is a mechanism that allows participants to express the intensity of their preferences. It assigns a cost to each additional vote, making it increasingly expensive to vote in favor of or against a proposal. While it enables the consideration of minority preferences, it is still prone to manipulation and does not account for long-term commitment to decisions.
|
||||
####
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Potential Use Cases
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
#### Polls/rankings: Continuous TCRs
|
||||
Token Curated Registries <a name="token-curated-registries"></a>
|
||||
|
||||
Token curated registries (TCRs) are decentralized, token-weighted lists that use economic incentives to curate high-quality content. While TCRs offer some improvements to decision-making processes, they tend to prioritize short-term gains over long-term vision, leading to suboptimal outcomes.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Proposal Funding via collective input (Discrete)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Collective Fund streaming ()
|
||||
|
||||
#### Osmotic Governance
|
||||
|
||||
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Jxcpj5cgEr6-eQrabMZfawL86jWytz4atmHqiQPxFeg/edit#slide=id.g1059708dfc6_0_15
|
||||
|
||||
Write a short paragraph on osmotic governance as a next generation iteration of Conviction Voting:
|
||||
*Osmotic governance is a next generation iteration of Conviction Voting that allows for a more fluid and dynamic delegation in collaborative decision-making process. It takes into account not only the strength of conviction, but also the distribution of opinions within a community. Through osmotic governance, voting power is distributed according to the level of agreement with a proposal, resulting in a more inclusive and democratic approach. This method encourages open dialogue and fosters collaboration among community members, promoting greater accountability and transparency in decision-making. Ultimately, osmotic governance aims to create a more equitable and sustainable society by empowering individuals and communities to take an active role in shaping their futures.*
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Case Studies
|
||||
|
||||
*Conviction voting offers a promising approach to collective decision-making in decentralized organizations. By prioritizing long-term commitment and reducing the influence of short-term speculation, it aims to produce more stable and well-thought-out decisions. Its adaptability makes it suitable for evolving decentralized organizations, and its potential use cases range from continuous TCRs to proposal funding via collective input. While there is still much to be explored in this area, conviction voting represents a significant step forward in governance mechanisms for decentralized organizations.*
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Conclusion
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue