Governance ideally funds good things. What is good is often subject to argument. But usually it is better to fund than not fund. The tragedy of commons instructs us that if we literally put a pot of money on the ground, everyone will drain it. So we might introduce a delay. Or, you must leave something of equal value behind to secure such withdrawal (see, take a donut, leave a dollar).
I want to open a green field discussion. I don't want to use any words that start with D. How do we enable public funding without voting or committees.
money trees
Re: money trees
Is this the primary question you're interested in?How do we enable public funding without voting or committees
Re: money trees
Max:
Some form of futarchy? People are betting on the outcome metrics of the policy.
Ross :
I like the futarchy direction. It still feels like voting. But it might just be one of those "you have to experience it to get it."
Max :
What if instead of betting money, you would bet votes. VOTE is a soulbound token. Everyone gets 1k votes each month. The better you vote, the higher your vote power.
VOTE can be instantiated by countries based on nationalities. Very easy to adopt.
Referendum to define which metrics we are allowed to bet on ( reducing homelessness, GDP growth, etc.).
Implementation is decided by Futarchy. Let the best voters vote more.
Some form of futarchy? People are betting on the outcome metrics of the policy.
Ross :
I like the futarchy direction. It still feels like voting. But it might just be one of those "you have to experience it to get it."
Max :
What if instead of betting money, you would bet votes. VOTE is a soulbound token. Everyone gets 1k votes each month. The better you vote, the higher your vote power.
VOTE can be instantiated by countries based on nationalities. Very easy to adopt.
Referendum to define which metrics we are allowed to bet on ( reducing homelessness, GDP growth, etc.).
Implementation is decided by Futarchy. Let the best voters vote more.
Re: money trees
Considering that fund allocation includes
(a) an amount of money
(b) a reason for which it is being distributed
(c) a mechanism to decide how to distribute it
(d) the distribution mechanism
(e) the recipients
If we want to take the vote or committees away, we are limiting what is available for (c), which shouldn't be that much of an issue given a clear (b) and that (a) and (d) are secured, and ofc (e) comes by on it's own except for rare cases.
Now, what decision mechanisms can we use to allocate that capital without resorting to voting?
Option 1: Random Capital allocation
Everyone interested applies, meet some deterministic criteria(eg contract txn count), we RNG the shit out of it and send money given the results.
Yes, it sucks. But doesn't include voting or committees (except maybe to define that criteria anyway?)
Option 2: Metric based allocation
A series of metrics is pre-defined and whatever possible recipients match the most of those at any given time get a proportional amount of the treasury. No veto, no preselection, no rebalancing (or at least not human voted)
Option 3: Discourse based allocation (with/without AI judges)
An open discussion space for people to argue their points of why they need the money, what it will be used for, why it maters and let everyone give their opinions and criticize that. Either based on some reputation/likes system, prediction markets/futarchy or AI evaluation we infer the results of how that allocation should be made - I'd be partial to AI.
I bet there are many other options, but I leave here some very basic ideas that I'd be curious to see reactions to. imo they all suck more than current governance in one way or another, and voting isn't terrible in essence if we stop making everyone vote everything on topics they don't care and don't know about.
(a) an amount of money
(b) a reason for which it is being distributed
(c) a mechanism to decide how to distribute it
(d) the distribution mechanism
(e) the recipients
If we want to take the vote or committees away, we are limiting what is available for (c), which shouldn't be that much of an issue given a clear (b) and that (a) and (d) are secured, and ofc (e) comes by on it's own except for rare cases.
Now, what decision mechanisms can we use to allocate that capital without resorting to voting?
Option 1: Random Capital allocation
Everyone interested applies, meet some deterministic criteria(eg contract txn count), we RNG the shit out of it and send money given the results.
Yes, it sucks. But doesn't include voting or committees (except maybe to define that criteria anyway?)
Option 2: Metric based allocation
A series of metrics is pre-defined and whatever possible recipients match the most of those at any given time get a proportional amount of the treasury. No veto, no preselection, no rebalancing (or at least not human voted)
Option 3: Discourse based allocation (with/without AI judges)
An open discussion space for people to argue their points of why they need the money, what it will be used for, why it maters and let everyone give their opinions and criticize that. Either based on some reputation/likes system, prediction markets/futarchy or AI evaluation we infer the results of how that allocation should be made - I'd be partial to AI.
I bet there are many other options, but I leave here some very basic ideas that I'd be curious to see reactions to. imo they all suck more than current governance in one way or another, and voting isn't terrible in essence if we stop making everyone vote everything on topics they don't care and don't know about.
Re: money trees
Any funding mechanism must have some metric by which a funding allocation is determined. I think we can get away from voting or committees as the specific decision making process but I don't think it's possible to get away from the idea of a decision making process in the abstract. If the goal is to get away from voting/committees specifically then we have a viable prompt.
Re: money trees
Futarchy is the best model for integrating AI into governance in harmony with humans.zeugh wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2024 3:39 pm
Option 3: Discourse based allocation (with/without AI judges)
An open discussion space for people to argue their points of why they need the money, what it will be used for, why it maters and let everyone give their opinions and criticize that. Either based on some reputation/likes system, prediction markets/futarchy or AI evaluation we infer the results of how that allocation should be made - I'd be partial to AI.
You can run AI to vote for you, at your own risk, with an incentive to have a better AI than your neighbor.
The more AI we have in our governance, the more we can settle millions of votes per day instead of running large votes. Humans are the bottleneck in market efficiency there.
Any system that can scale by x1000 than other systems will end up winning sooner or later.