In Defense of Coin Voting

Coin voting has three key problems: Those with more coins can influence things. Coins are freely traded, and bribery protocols like Paladin have appeared. The coin holder's level of involvement (context) is not considered when calculating the voting power for Coin Voting. Conversely, Coin Voting has some positives: Unlike one-member-one-vote, Coin ... See more

So what can we do? To balance the influence of large and smallholders.Decentralized ID: to reduce gaming of quadratic weighting.As a measure of whether someone invested a minimum of time (a precious, limited resource) and gained enough context (enough to add value).If a threshold of recent engagement is met, token rewards are offered for voting/pro... See more

Coin Voting allows token holders to participate in decision-making, but most token holders are not well-known (a result of attracting high-APY token holders). Decentralizing governance was delayed rather than building community. Despite the desire for decentralization (for regulatory, idealistic, or scaleable reasons), new alternatives have emerged... See more

It reduces plutocracy, whale attacks, and voter apathy. Furthermore, it accounts for skin-in-the-game, direct signaling and is relatively permissionless. By using tools like Conviction Voting, holders can increase their voting power. Due to a lack of top-down strategy setting, convergence is a challenge for many DAOs. As a final note, the above sys... See more