Yes! IMO that’d the best course of action.
Not some questionable resistance but antifragility.
Yes! IMO that’d the best course of action.
Actually, in the proposed changes to Rep distribution for Genesis 1.0, this is addressed… namely:
- you only get rep when you do work, no freebies
- the 2% cap is removed
I think both of these changes combined lead to the desired state…?
Was exactly typing that, indeed a rep for work, plus dilution over time would eliminate the fake accounts anyway. That, plus the linearity of voting power, meaning, multiple accounts belonging to the same person equal as if all votes were conducted by a single account, but that is already the case? REP =~ voting power?
This is correct.
The above is also an inherent property - as people propose or lock GEN, it dilutes existing owners over time.
Thank you for the elaborate reply. I wish, I could know how to reply to multiple comments in one message… as I was saying within the reply to Ivan, I understand the responsibility for the outcome on the provider, however, I still would always ask myself the question: “will the funds be used ethically and lawfully for this project?”, especially, if I should accept the possibility of outsourcing. Does the (successful) end justifies the means?
Totally valid point, IMO. This approach really only matters if Genesis continues granting REP the way it has been lately: people coming in and asking for it. If I can do this multiple times, I get more REP for free. You might loosely call this a “proof of unique human” REP system, since you get REP just for being a unique person, for the most part.
With REP systems that aren’t “proof of unique human,” like a stake-GEN-for-REP system (which is just modified coin voting), you’re right, this doesn’t matter as far as I can tell. The same applies to a do-work-for-REP system.
We should consider if Genesis 1.0 should continue using a “proof of unique human” system at all.
Worth noting also that even if Genesis stops giving REP to people for being unique humans, it still has a large group of reputation-holders who were granted REP that way. Should they all be forced to do some kind of pseudonym-friendly KYC, in order to make sure no one has cheated the system? I’m kind of feel like it’s not worth the trouble, especially if we’ll be moving away from that REP system moving forward.
You are describing government or huge company procurement, where they may has statutory compliance requirements regarding bid competitiveness, self dealing, bribery, labor or employment law. This makes government and huge company procurement super expensive, bureaucratic and time consuming and requires dedicated staff and legal support on their end. Certain firms make procurement their specialty, by having seasoned staff dedicated to these areas, substantial connections or even lobbyists, “revolving door” employees and advisors, financial resources to ride out the delays and the uncertainty of getting the bid, getting paid and not getting sued. Fortunately, normal commercial and professional arrangements do not have this burden and can move ten times faster and get it done five times cheaper. Which would you want for this or any DAO.
You want to apply the disclosure standard you do not even consider asking from your own providers. Do you ask the contractor redoing your kitchen to identify all the employees, subcontractors and vendors involved in getting your project finished? Do you ask them about the compliance with health and safety laws or request the details of contractual financial arrangements and internal cost structure, so you can examine them against some ideas of what’s appropriate or fair or whatever. What would happen if you would?
In your own business, when you contract your services, how far do you disclose all the components listed above?
How does cheating and self-dealing help with antifragility?
I am finding it deeply disappointing that we start with a promise of entirely new and much better ways for people to organize and work together. And all to quickly either demand more control and bureaucracy than is practiced today, or want a free-for-all, open to abuse in rather obvious and well-established ways, yet with the oversight from the position of power, engaging in transparent favoritism and self-dealing.
We’ve met the enemy, and we are the enemy.
Ah! Here is the answer I was looking for. I did not realize that REP was a virtual free-for-all at this point. Solution: stop it, that’s silly! Now the Sybil-ness makes some sense. By looking at the proposals I was under the impression that REP was earned (POW style). In fact, I saw Aaron ask for REP and get rebuked a-la “why should we just give it to you?!?” so now I begin to understand.
TL;DR in my opinion, DAOs should be more concerned with ‘how’ the things are done, not only with the cost and the part of ‘how’ is knowing who is doing it. I would say for non-profit DAOs, this concern should be of an equal importance.
I think it is less the subject of size and more of a reputation to lose in case of any misconduct.
In addition to profit-based (thus cost-saving) organisations, we do have a non-profit ones where how the things are done is equally as important as till when and for how much, because the reputation is at stake, not the market position and the ruined reputation is more difficult to earn. As for what this DAO (Genesis DAO) is and if it is profit/non-profit, I do not know that yet, after only one day of study, need a little bit more time. So far I have built a mental picture of Genesis DAO as a generic template of guidelines and contracts that other DAOs can reuse partially, or fully.
That would slightly too presumptuous statement for my personal taste. Please avoid such when speaking with me in the future.
Of course! I would not to be responsible for paying illegal (anonymous?) immigrants nor for stuff assembled by children in off-shore factories. This is personal and thus important for me, and so can it be important for (some) DAOs, perhaps not necessarily this one. I hope that in the long run HC will develop a quasi-ethical way of looking at proposals within each DAO.
Sadly, I am mainly tendering for these huge ones with the whole shebang of checks, forms, past financial figures and compliances.
I think we are further and further off-topic but I will look within the past discussions around ethics within DAO and perhaps fork a new discussion.
There is certainly also some earning going on! But most people in Genesis Alpha got their initial REP just by asking for it in a proposal, without any work done in exchange (you can probably see multiple proposals like this in there now). This is a practice that should probably stop as Genesis Alpha (an experiment/stress test) transitions to 1.0 (a mission-driven DAO). People do also generally ask for REP in proposals to do work or be rewarded for work they did, and that can probably continue.
Indeed. Stop handing out REP with no strings if you want honest, useful members.
As for those who have REP now… leave them grandfathered. Call it the GenDAO “learning tax” - it seems silly to try and recoup it at this point.
As the “real names” vote is winding down, I posted parting thoughts and raised an important post-mortem question with the proposal.
The message can also be seen https://disqus.com/by/wkarshat/
There are perhaps 200 variously misplaced or abandoned accounts.
Maybe half of them are No Profile
They may contain 40% of the total REP
Easily a dozen puppets or Sybils could be playing or sleeping in this mess.
This does not matter only if the “member” votes do not matter, which may be fine for some, but I’d rather it be known.
Pretty sure that the only reasonable thing to do is a fresh formation, total reset, manual transfer of REP for some, proposal to transfer for some, some enforcement of the pseudo/name rules. This level of account abandonment affected hugely the curve of granting REP. Not sure whether the grants started at 1000, but it was 500, 300, 200, now 100. With all those inert accounts swelling the ranks at the intermediate levels, at 100 people are getting like 0.2%, which should have been perhaps 0.5%. This created the need for the arbitrary 2% ceiling, but if Genesis was more like 80 members and 50 active the ones with 3-5% would not look disproportionate.
Kinda surprised that the curve was not calculated to produce precise outcomes…
More coverage Increasing Voter Participation Rates in Genesis
How about we start slashing Rep from accounts that have been inactive for 3+ months? I’d be happy to upvote whoever requests fund to finance that effort.
I think that’d be an awful way of not dealing with the mammoth in the room: apathy.
And just kicking out ppl failing to engage would be no solution for how uncomfortable / disengaging / offputing we allow for the UX / CX to be sometimes.
At the same time I’m very much in favor of reputation decay.
Here is a summary and possible next steps. Feel free to comment and many any suggestions.
I think this discussion is super valuable, as digital identity is a such an important topic on its own and it can be explored from many angles.
At our office in Berlin, we have been generally looking into DAOs and privacy from a legal perspective, with a lawyer who is specialised in privacy issues and regulation regarding technology. We are shaping a proposal to the GenesisDAO to do some research and publish some articles (first idea is to do this in the form of blog articles) around the topic of DAOs, privacy, regulation and the law. If you have some suggestions regarding topics we shouldn’t miss, please let me know!
I added comments in the document where felt it could better reflect the richness of the conversation and the discussion of long-term solutions as opposed to immediate solutions. It does make sense to have a working group, probably working together with Adam and Alex around this issue.