One person one vote

One person one vote for determining voting power


A one person one vote voting power approach means that equal voting power is distributed to each person in the network. A process would be needed to verify that someone is a human so that people don’t create multiple accounts to greatly increase their voting power.

High execution & scaling complexity (Score - 2)

It is inherently complex to execute and scale a one person one vote voting system in a permissionless system due to the fact people could easily create multiple wallets and identities. Creating a voting system which is sybil resistant requires a sufficient amount of checks and balances to ensure that a voting wallet is in fact a human being and that other voting wallets are also not that same human being. AI and computer systems add further to this complexity as they could also be contributing towards this problem of creating multiple wallets to try and game the verification process with little human involvement. The cost of maintaining a verification process at any scale could be highly expensive for ecosystems. This approach may require the development of more novel approaches to help lower the costs of verification before this approach can feasibly scale to a large population.

Low fairness for network decisions (Score - 2)

The more Web3 networks that exist across the market that a user can choose from the more unfair it becomes to give every person equal say in how the network parameters should change. This is because voters would have no commitment or obligation to contribute through usage, capital or by helping to maintain and improve the network. At any time these users can also move to another ecosystem. A one person one vote approach does not take into account any of the contributions that other people have made that could have been paramount in making the ecosystem successful such as capital investment, ongoing usage and tax contributions and other forms of contribution such as code contributions. A situation where one person one vote is more important and potentially fair is when there are very few networks to choose from and a large population becomes dependent on a single or small handful of networks. In this scenario it could be argued that people are being somewhat forced to use the networks due to a lack of practical alternatives. One person one vote could potentially be considered as an effective supplementary voting power approach in these scenarios alongside other voting power approaches to give people more of a voice in how that network is changed over time. They would be given this voting power even though they might not be contributing much or anything to the network's success.

Very low fairness for treasury decisions (Score - 1)

One person one vote does not respect the contributions that other people have made to make the ecosystem successful such as the initial capital needed to start the ecosystem and make any initial genesis treasury allocation actually valuable. One person one vote also completely ignores the tax contributions that people have made to the ecosystem that have funded the treasury over the long term. Users that have contributed large amounts of their time and capital into using, maintaining and improving the network would be disadvantaged with this voting power approach. The users who have least contributed to the network and that can leave at any time would be given the most benefit from this approach and the users who contribute the most to the network to make it successful would have their contributions ignored if one person one vote was predominantly used.

Total score = 5 / 15

Last updated