Conviction Voting
Public.icon
Conviction seems to translate to conviction or belief Previous companies, interviews and appearances related to oneself.icon Conviction Voting provides a new decision-making process where community members continuously aggregate their preferences and provide funding for proposals. In other words, voters are not just voting once in a time box, but always asserting their preferences on which proposals they want to approve. Members can change their preferences at any time, but the longer they support the same proposal, the stronger their conviction becomes. As conviction increases in this way, long-term community members with consistent preferences have greater influence than short-term participants who simply try to influence the vote.
It seems difficult, but they want you to read this paper
Unlike other decision-making mechanisms, Conviction Voting does not arrange proposals in the form of A vs. B (such as in Colony's Budget Box, for example) - instead, the community always considers all candidates' proposals. In other words, one person can allocate half of their voting rights to Proposal A, a quarter to Proposal B, and the remaining quarter to Proposals C and D. Each proposal is considered a bucket, and token-weighted opinions are considered faucets, allowing individuals to pour their preferences into the selected proposal in the proportion they choose.
https://gyazo.com/6a24727c7db287ef9991059bf87e6400
The longer you support a proposal, the more the bucket is filled with your beliefs. Your conviction follows a half-life decay curve, grows with *time and weight to your preferences, and reaches a certain threshold. If you decide to move your preference to a new bucket, your conviction flows out of the previous proposal following a decay function, as if a small hole had opened at the bottom of each bucket. By defining the accumulation and decay of conviction using a decay curve, this system introduces temporal dynamics and approaches the mechanisms of natural systems. By suppressing the rapid movement of tokens, it eliminates the need for any token lock period to avoid recent fluctuations in voting. To understand the mechanism of conviction accumulation, try playing with the basic Conviction Voting applet we created at https://sponnet.github.io/cs-sim/ to test a few initial system parameters, or check out the math-oriented HackMD created by DappLion for ETHParis at https://github.com/dapplion. Existing on-chain voting issues
I am aware of that. tkgshn.icon*2
Vote buying, Plutocracy, and sybil attack are tactics that can be used by wealthy malicious actors to exert undue influence on the voting process. Each refers to 1) bribing other voters to vote in a specific way, 2) buying large amounts of tokens to amplify their own vote, and 3) dividing their held tokens among many accounts to unduly influence decision-making. Such problems are plaguing many on-chain voting systems today. As seen in scenarios with multiple on-chain votes, time-boxed voting is particularly susceptible to manipulation in the moments leading up to its conclusion. Strategic voters wait to see the initial results before casting their own ballots at the end of the session, balancing the scales in their favor. While mechanisms such as "Wait for quiet voting" or "PLCR voting" partially address this issue by extending the voting time or keeping the results secret until the end of the vote, the complexity of UX and potential liquidity complications due to any token lock-up period remain a challenge.
On-chain voter apathy - While we may think of on-chain voting as a solution to low voter turnout in political elections, participation in on-chain voting is even lower, with only 3.8% of voting tokens participating in the recent Aragon AGP vote. Ultimately, despite our discussions of decentralized governance, not many people are actively involved in it. On-chain voting systems are difficult to use smoothly, and voters need to send multiple transactions to confirm their votes within a narrow time frame, all through the inconvenient user interface of a blockchain. With fewer voters, the results may not accurately reflect the sentiment of the community, making it a major drawback of such new decentralized decision-making systems. So let's continue to explore ways to improve it.