Disclaimer: just the quick transcript from the talk. Sorry for errors. Probably not all is clear – treat that as the raw material for finding insights or continuing the conversation.
To clarify the boundaries let’s talk about governance specifically. When we talk about governance – it’s about the decision making process in societies and institutions framing those processes. Should dgov solutions be used for that. There’s a lot of fundamental arguments against. So should be and how it should work. What are the conditions. And what’s the best way to start.
I’ve been 7 years in the filed of frustration, ideas etc. My first experience was in the party in Argentina, where politics needed to vote in accordance to people sentiment. In Democracy Earth we had a lot of epxeriments – lot’s of experiments: direct democract, liquid democracy, qudrating voting, collaborative budgest. Worked with NGOs, governments etc. Try to make something bigger than just surveys. After 7 years in those different contents – we’ve found things that didn’t work. The higher the risk – the more consensus needed. When you go for a vote you’ll find a high interest to change the result. Every time there was a bias. I saw firsthand how a single individual could manipulate the party. That’s the nature of politics. The matter changes the context. Am interested in the current DAO development. But there’s a lot of missing components. Lot’s of it plutocratic. Single invisible whale could influence the Aragon vote in the last moment. Plutocracy is how most DAOs work now. If we want democracy there’s a very important and complicated issue – identity. How we claim a social network, facebook without a facebook. How would the protocol will look like. How give people rights and prevent sybil attacks. We’ve been researching that in 2019. Some areas – are turing tests. To recognize human patterns. Breaking it down to smaller problems, to verify human in the networks. Another thing is quadratic voting from Glen Weyl. It doesn’t measure just sentiment but also the density. In national ellection you’ll have 20 percent left, same right and 20 percent the people who can be influences. CV can resolve the identification of the density there. There’s all in the pursuit of the democracy. We face very high stakes decision.
If you change the number of option will that change the preference? e.g. Marijuana - yes or no. If we’ll have more options – will it help?
Actually yes – we say in 2016 in Colombian referendum, about the peace agreement with PARC. Government made a referendum with yes or no. Unlike Brexit you’ll see the people in rural areas and cities vote differently, same on age. We made a shallow referendum targeting the Colombian expats. We broke agreement to 6 chapters. US gov was against. We still did it – we found that 5 of 6 chapters people voted mostly yes, except 1 of the chapters (about the political rights to the PARC). That helped us to identify the deal breaker.
Question on bias – DAOs as potential tech solution. Systems are never complete or perfect. Is it the threat to the democratic values.
Things that are more difficult to implement – overcoming the idea of winners and loosers. That’s a shortcut bias. if we’ll be more creative we can be better with our systems. E.g. AI or collective intelligence.
We can ask where the democracy starts.
Aragon is doing a great job by eating own dog food. Thinking how do we decentralize. Use the system to build the system.
Where does this comes from except of the intuition?
I know i’m not right most of the times, nobody is. But there should be some improvement.
With this Aragon case – what we can do with it? It’s super scary. In ordinary orgs you at least know the name.
Different communities will choose different things. Really depends on the object of governance.
Comment about that: Aragon is distributing the ANT. We’ll got more ANT as one of the team in the upcoming time. That whale’s support helps.
Want to challenge. There was a great article by Schneider – there’s an impulse to control the bottleneck. Just try to influence the bottom up. People often assume that DAO Stack is decentralized, but it doesn’t make sense. They don’t want that (don’t say that =). We can change in the future. Most of the issues you brought up can be fixed. But we don’t have enough language around mechanism design. We’re talking about smartphones in 1999.
I’m not a maximalist for anything. One coin one vote is just the system that is out there. A lot of people vote in the last moment.
How to create a fair basis of knowledge for people to make good decisions. If I look at the environmental debate – people don’t have equal access to information and consolidated knowledge. Centralistic systems – is something in the position for now.
In the broad sense – dealing with information. We talked earlier about forums – it’s the best way for now. Whole platforms can be build around those use cases. Huge problem for the society. Get this regulators.
I’m biased here, as I’m building such a took – forums don’t work. Going yes to know an again. What we build is a wikipedia with camps, where people can dissect the arguments. Than it’s all about falsifying this and that, by experiments etc. You can track and measure. One of the POCs – people can rank each other how they perform on each field (expert consensys). All the other systems there filter things in the start. Noone can say it’s fake new.
For solving things like climate change – people can submit complex scientific projects, people can’t rate. That’s where you need a system for vote delegation and we can’t avoid that.
In some systems you can just rely on identity. We end up in some communication problems.
This is a complex problem there’s a lot of creative ways to find if this information is true – search, opinion etc. We need systems that will educate you to find more than one view. Would it be through reputation or else. Right now we have systems like advertising which is misleading. We should pay people to get multiple opinions.
Very interesting that you divide the world to true or false. When things are more complex, not binary.
The prediction is that if you measure things will improve. One side is yelling and the other is not listening. So measure and it will influence.
Tennagraph is focused on voting. Canonizer is different.
We need a spectrum. There’s a bunch of interesting sector.