The Problem with "One-Account, One-Vote" Model
I don't know how many of you are long enough with this ecosystem to remember an idea Ned Scott presented as "revolutionary" back in the day of the old blockchain: one-account, one-vote.
The idea wasn't for the core blockchain, but for SMTs and communities. And Ned thought that being able to have equal votes every account at the SMT level was great. It's no wonder he led the other chain where he did.
So, why "one-account, one-vote"? To mimic what is going on in democracies, where every person has one vote, no matter if one is a billionaire, in the middle-class or a beggar.
Why does this supposedly work in democracies? The key-word is person. Not account.
In a system where multi-account is permitted, you can't have "one-account, one-vote" model. Because it's different than "one-person, one-vote". Unless you decide to implement KYC. Yeah, right...
If you have such a model, it will eventually be abused. If rewards with monetary value are involved, you can be almost sure of that.
That's why stake must matter when distributing votes that decide where rewards go. You can't have someone with no stake have the same vote weight as someone with a sizeable stake.
I know it seems harsh towards those who don't have the means to buy their stakes. But if such as system isn't in place, then you create a heaven for abusers, which will be even worse for everyone, including those who have no stake, but are honest.
One more thing. Abusers are difficult to combat in a one-account, one-vote model. Ban. blacklist or fight the known multi-accounts and they'll just make other/more accounts.
The options that I believe would work is to make it economically unviable for such a network to keep profiting (if you can find such a solution), or to change the system and add stake-weighted votes.
Nothing is ever simple, huh?
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
This is right. Multi account you get more votes, more rewards. Unless it's kyc, then it's open to manipulation. I think its more fairer if like you mentioned, the staking method is better. The more stake you have, then more say in the matter. Otherwise if each account is the same, then multi account can get one vote each. It's definitely not fair to the account that has more token !
Exactly. And if stake doesn't matter, so why buy it in the first place, right?
I used to think that one vote/one account was a good idea until I had read a reference (forget who) in a post explaining the abuse potential you mention here.
The problem, however, still remains. Apart from legitimate down voting, like plagiarism or spamming, you can get down voted because they don’t like your content or the way you do things that are not breaking any “rules” per se, you just upset a bigger stake holder than yourself. There probably isn’t an easy solution, but I think that stymies any wide spread acceptance.
The other way around, if you mess with an abuser in an 'one-account, one-vote' system, he or she has a much greater power against you, no matter if you invested anything or not. Because the abuser uses its network of multi-accounts against you and each alt counts for 1 downvote.
All things considered, I still think the stake-weighted voting system is better, even if someone which a bigger stake can use it inappropriately. There are ways to mitigate that, if the issue becomes known. While on the OAOV, there isn't much you can do.
The idea applies more to governance than voting power.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
That is true. We also have the issue of should someone who just signs up have the same vote value as someone like Blocktrades (or anyone who is dedicated), who put in a great deal of effort over the years?
Bad things happen when people who do not have stake in the game are given voting rights. Suddenly they can vote themselves things at the expense of others.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Luckily this is not the case for Hive, but you are right, such a system would incentivize abuse and disincentive the staking of assets if that doesn't bring any benefit. And as you remarked, it can have greater implications at the governance level, if we are talking about a governance token.
Congratulations @gadrian! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):
Your next target is to reach 7500 replies.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out the last post from @hivebuzz:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
That was a wonderful breakdown of why staking is so important. And the importance of individual representation in a healthy, functioning system over resource and greed over-representation.
No, it really isn't, and our species is really good at coming up with ways to make things even more difficult lol!
Thanks for sharing an awesome post, hope you have a splendid weekend!
We do have a way to over-complicate things, don't we?
Thank you an enjoy your week-end as well!
The situation is very complicated and I agree that it's not simple. There will always be some people who want to take advantage of the situation and use it to their advantage.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
In every system there will be abusers. The question is where do we have the means to combat such behavior and where we don't.
Good post, @gadrian, Nothing is ever simple when people are involved.
Machines break too. And algorithms can have bugs too. So it's not always about people, but yeah, humans are complex and hardly one exactly like another.
I never thought about this before. I understand why one account/one vote does not provide the best environment. Thanks for sharing this.
Thanks for dropping by, @rcaine!
This is part of why democracy is having such a hard time of it lately. Most of the people voting don't have much skin in the game. The ones with the "power" are the ones manipulating the system. They have no accountability and they can say and promise whatever they want in order to stay in power. And because a large percentage of the voting public have little knowledge of how everything works, they just toe the company line and vote one way or the other for reasons completely indifferent to the actual issues that need solving.
Back when the US was founded, only landowners were allowed to vote because they had a "stake" in what was decided. It behooved them to pay attention to what was going on in the government because they had the most to gain or lose.
While I don't think we should ever go back to something that simplistic, I do think there should be some sort of qualifier on voting or a weighted system of some kind. Like, if you don't know the capitol city of your country, your vote shouldn't count. I'm sure that ship has sailed because whichever party stood to lose the most votes for something like this would cry to the heavens it was "racist" and "discriminatory". But, one can dream...
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Interesting... I didn't know that.
On one end, it's hard to go back to a system where stake in the game matters for voting, on the other end, as voting takes place now in politics - or rather when you think how little the promises made in campaign matter during the mandate -, this system is ideal for mass manipulation without accountability.
You make a good point. I had not ever thought of it before but I can see how it would have an impact on the community.
Maybe a solution will come along soon.
I tried not to refer to specific examples, but they can be found.
!BBH !HBIT
Hivebits blends Hive's blockchain and Bitcoin's ethos. Your effort = your reward. Mine HBIT simply 1-per-day with (no space):
! hivebitsor! HBITor! hbitor$ hbit.Success! You mined .9 HBIT and the user you replied to received .1 HBIT on your behalf. You can receive 100% of the HBIT by replying to one of your own posts or comments. Or, support Hivebits at the official HBIT mine | your wallet | market | tools | connect | <><
This confirmation reply will go off when Resource Credits (RCs) get low. Yet, your hivebits command will still go through and you'll get your HBIT. :)
Because this is such an awesome post, here is a BBH Tip for you.
. Keep up the fantastic work
Absolutely true. Stake-based system is crucial. The only way to "cheat" the system is to purchase a LARGE stake while it's extremely underpriced, then use that stake unfairly after the value becomes expensive. That user has great financial power and influence, invested at very little financial risk.