I’d like to see a whale split their 10.000 TIME into 10.000 different wallets (addresses).
Even if it can be done via an automated script, there will be security issues and IMHO it would be quite messy.
1 Like
I don’t think that anyone should have a vote if they were not holding wMEMO prior to the value dropping below backing.
1 Like
I don’t even know why we didn’t do quadratic from the beginning. Makes so much sense. Frogs are not dumb and many whales are just selfish.
Dude, this whole thing is heavy duty math done by big computer clusters
Agree 100%, frogs should have major say in any governance process not sharks or whales, as we saw how close we were from losing the treasury to whales, so please make this a priority so that in future we won’t come across this situation.
So instead of one 12K TIME wallet a person will create 12,000 wallets holding 1 TIME each and get the same voting power … what am I missing?
1 Like
I partially agree with that. For sure vote is not fair but, as Daniele stated, we are talking about money here. Thus I have made this proposal for taking into account BOTH the money invested and the period of hodling. It would be much more fair IMO.
3 Likes
This is a serious problem and an existential threat to wonderland. There is a lot of repetition in proposals too. There needs to be more structure in the proposals, we should not be forced to vote multiple times on the same topic. The governance needs a complete facelift.
I believe the fairest voting system would give long term holders a more weighted vote. For every day holding wMEMO, you would gain more voice. This would max out at 180 so that at everyone has the same opportunity to garner the same weighted vote. This is fair. It keeps whales at the same level as everyone else, and keeps the big manipulators the fuck out. This could be applied for how we treat the treasury too!
It is easy to make a new wallet and divide your wMEMO over the wallets. If we vote per head then it is even easier to cheat. There could be something in place that weighs the amount of memo less the more there is in the wallet, but then it still could easily be split over wallets if there is any intent of abuse.
Also you have to consider that people might come in to vote with a little bit of wMEMO just to sabotage whatever we are trying to vote on.
Therefore, I don’t think this proposal would solve anything.
I also agree with the proposal.
I agree, as you need to be holding for sometime, for example 180 to 360 days to be eligible for vote.
Guys, have alook at my idea to get rid off a lot of problems with the voting system:
https://dao.wonderland.money/t/dao-discussion-should-we-improve-the-voting-system/13992
Have a nice day,
MiMikry.MM
Easier to manipulate this way, just make a few thousand addresses using a script, with a tiny bit of TIME and skew the vote any way you want. Unless you KYC/dox everyone, this would likely be worse than the current vote method established in the proof of stake crypto community (e.g. ETH).
This will allow for further manipulation. Just use a script to place a very small amount of time into a few thousand address, and then vote however you want. A few YouTube videos explain how to do this fairly easily. Only way this would work is to be anti-crypto and KYC/DOXX all voters so you know who they are - may need all their IP addresses too, so you know who is who. Otherwise, manipulation will be easier. There is a reason why proof of stake crypto do not use quadratic voting.
there should be a system with a minimum holding time, to be able to vote too.
1 Like
No shit. I agree with this.
Keeps spammers and sharks at bay so legit investors can have a voice.
All frogs are equal!
except frogs with the time or resources to make more than 1 Wallet are more equal.
that would be nice.
and let me add to it…
if you sell your time/memo/wmemo you also lose.
example:
you have 100 times and after 100 days you get 100% voting power.
if you sell, let’s say, 50 time now you have 50 Time but still have 100% voting power according to your proposal, right?
my add-on: Sellers should lose that voting power in a way that they must think twice before doing it.
example:
you sell 50 time now you have 50 time. you sold 50% of your position so you should lose more than 50% voting power also.
I’m not good with maths but something like, for every 1% that you sell you lose 1.8% of the voting power
so in this example, a person selling 50% of their position would end up losing 75% of the voting power meaning that instead of 50 time they will get a 17.5 times voting power (feel free to correct my maths if wrong).
I would do a tier system.
Tier 1 : 0.00001 to 0.999 time .5 vote
1 to 10 1 vote
10.00001 to 100 2 votes
10.0001 to 1000 3 votes
1000.00001 to 10000 4 votes
10000.00001 to 100 000 5 votes and so on
all voters need to solve CAPCHA and confirm not to be a robot
1 Like