Hello frog nation,
This is my first post here. I’m part of the community for some time and what happened a week ago shocked me. For that reason, I want to become active as well and make Wonderland better than ever before. More details about me are later.
My goal is to improve Wonderland. In my opinion, the highest asset of a project is trustworthiness. We can achieve this by making the project more save.
For that reason, I created a multilayer voting system that could be used by the community to increase the trustworthiness of the project.
Before I start, please keep in mind that we as a community also could implement only a few portions of my proposal. We can also improve it together. It’s just an idea and a potential solution for our problems from the past.
Solution: Multilayer voting system.
First Step: The community create a catalog of criteria which can be grouped together to categorize proposals. For example:
- Category 1: Has low impact on the project like the option for stakeholders which want to leave the project (rage quit).
- Category 2: The impact on the project is middle. An example for a category like that could be: Higher risk investments for the project.
- Category 3: The impact for the project is essential. An Example could be: Shut down Wonderland.
Those categories are important for the next step.
Second Step: The weighting of the voting depends on the category which is described above. To explain. If the community will have category 3 vote, the procedure would look like this: Since the decision has an impact of the whole project, the voting must fulfill several requirements to be accepted. It is important that every holder’s vote will be weighted the same. That means every holder has one vote which would be spliced into two pools. The first pool is decision based on the value of the holder’s wallet. The higher the amount of the wallet value, the more weight the vote will have. In the second pool, every vote has the same weight (1000 votes means 1/1000 weight). To accept the vote for category 3 voting, both pools have to have a higher acceptance of like 51% (or more) of all voting’s.
Third Step: Define the acceptance value in % for each category. If we have an upcoming voting which has an impact for the whole project. It’s maybe not fair enough if we choose to accept the vote if the outcome is for example 51% yes to 49% no. In those cases, we could define a required amount of yes voting’s of for example 66% of all voting’s to accept the category 3 proposal.
Fourth Step: Define how many pools are necessary for each category to accept or decline a proposal. The impact on the project of a category 1 proposal is not as high as the impact of a category 3 proposal. For that reason, a category 1 proposal needs only one of two pools with a required acceptance percentage of 51% (percentage should be determined by the community) of the voting’s.
Possible voting structure: Categories combined with pools
- Category 1A: the proposal has a low impact on the project. To accept the proposal, it has to have a 51% yes votes based on the wallet value.
- Category 1B: the proposal has a low impact on the project. To accept the proposal, it has to have a 51% yes votes based on the total amount of voters.
- Category 2A: the proposal has a middle impact on the project. To accept the proposal, it has to have a 60% yes votes based on the wallet value.
- Category 2B: the proposal has a middle impact on the project. To accept the proposal, it has to have a 60% yes votes based on the total amount of voters.
- Category 2C: the proposal has a middle impact on the project. To accept the proposal, it has to have a 60% yes votes based on the total amount of voters and the amount of value of the wallet.
- Category 3: the proposal has a high impact on the project. To accept the proposal, it has to have a 66% yes votes based on the total amount of voters and the amount of value of the wallet.
Note like mentioned before: the %-base can be defined by the community as well as the category system or the pool system.
This proposal is a small frogs idea. It is for you guys; I believe in you. If you want me to work out a detailed concept, let me know.
To my bio: I have a bachelor of science degree in data science and currently I’m working on my master of science degree in business administration with a major in innovation management. I’m a highly innovative person. If you guys wish that I invest more time for wonderland, let me know. I have always good solutions for problems. If you want me to continue, write me, I’m willing to put more time into the project for the community (for example, I have made a potential mechanism for a rage quit option).
I share my opinions with other frogs that are my real-life friends, so they help me a lot and we challenge each other constantly.
I want to be as transparent as possible. My next steps would be:
- I would have to analyze Wonderland from the point of view of a category system
- Create a value analysis of the processes to transfer them into the categories
- Weight the processes and categories depending on a weighting system based on criteria like impact on the project
** Create maybe one or two alternatives
- Create a calculating system to make a fair vote for each category
** Create one or two test scenarios for possible future proposals
- Add additional requirements from the community
- Check for technical dependencies
- Check if the voting system is reliable if the dynamics of the project changes: like the value of the project grows asymmetric to the frog nation
- Learn from mistakes and approve the system also while design it
- Create a proper description of the mechanism and validate it from the community
I want to add: this voting system could be changed any time if the community want to. We could do it by proposal and vote for it
See you guys.