I agree we should not be dictated to by opportunistic whales BUT is there a problem with 1 holder = 1 vote (I am asking!) Can wallets (i.e. holders) be spun up programmatically? That being the case, who would have the resources to be able to do that, whales maybe? What if instead there was some kind of weighting based on amount and length held? I am not a solidity developer and so do not know if/how this would technically be possible.
This should be almost quite simple, if you bought in for 1 TIME and you have it for 1 day, voting power =1, if you held your 1 TIME for 7 days, voting power = 7. very simple version, but should be easy to implement.
What happens if you switch wallet ?
i definitely agree with this proposal
In deed, any advantage of not been so?
I also agree, in the current context, 1 person=1 vote is more logical than wealth based weighed voting.
I agree with this idea.
Just recently, in FortressDAO, one of the developers has a large amount of tokens and makes suggestions that benefit him, thus destroying the community governance of the project.
https://twitter.com/FortressDAO/status/1491100332650557447
If the influence in voting is proportional to the amount of tokens held, the possibility of a whale monopoly of the national treasury like fortressDAO will increase. We should change the voting system in Wonderland to one vote per person.
Lets make the vote count, all frogs all equal.
The bag size should not be counted when decizions are made.
Last vote has proved that we are rulled my a hand of Whales.
Yes for the quadratic vote implementation.
I personally do not agree with quadratic voting, but, vote should be based on length of time token held + amount of token held. This would give all of the holders that have held through all this shyte, a better chance
indeed a Fund managed by people/a DAO is a very interesting concept. Even more so if quadratic voting is implemented, or some other measure of voting that is equitable. Anyway it would be, it needs to be whaleproof nonetheless.
Agreed. Put this to a vote, yesterday.
1 Like
Quadatic voting with average weighting for holding time of wMEMO needs to be implemented before anything else.
1 Like
agreed. But looking at the RQ WIP i get the feeling that itĀ“s only about giving power to the big bag holders.
Voting needs to be based on amount of token held x the length of time it has been held
Just to make voting acceptable
This could make a vote for someone that has held 1 for a thousand days = to someone that has held 1000 for 1 day
But that still doesnāt make it quite right, because someone that has held 1000 for 2 days, has a far better vote than someone that has held 1 for 1001 days.
so how do you make it fair?
Just like in real life, you canāt vote until you 18, here you should be able to vote after you held the tokens for X amount of time (30 days?).
A more fair and rational approach to this problem would also provide the respect to the large investors, Rather than simply cutting then outā¦like has been the accusation by the masses Para-5.
Soā¦
1 person > 1 vote | plus position
Take the amount of voting power of an individual and divide by the total amount of voting power that is applied.
1 wMemo = 1+Ā¹ positional power
The more mice that vote, the less the power of the whale, but still respective of atmospheric cohesion.
1 Like
If you could code that, Iām sure youād provide a new scalable voting solution to the Avax network, possibly growing a profitable business
@Pehtroll
Fuck the whales. Letās make this happen.
1 Like
How happen when happen? Shut down the whales now before its too late! Help Dani!!