Proposal: Zombie DAO REP Slash Experimental Apocalypse

This is an experiment in zombie DAO actions and politics.

I have no ulterior motives besides experimentation.

I have no ill-will towards anyone who is a part or has been a part of Genesis.

As can be seen by the lack of funds, the lack of chatter, the lack of proposals etc. it appears now that Genesis is akin to what I would call a zombie DAO. Much like abandoned businesses that exist in some quasi-legal state with no funding, no taxes, no currency velocity and no truly active members doing anything of actual value, yet still existent in some strange form there is now a different kind of playground ripe for experimentation. A once vibrant community is currently mostly silent. Will this wake up the dragons? Do they care? Or are they off terrorizing a completely different village now…

This proposal is very simple:

Slash the REP of anyone who has not voted on anything (including this proposal) since 00:00:00 GMT on December 1, 2019 down to 50. This allows them to participate again in the future if they want to, but removes a majority of their voting power due to their prolonged inactivity.

Repeat: if you have not participated lately and you want to vote “yes” or “hell no” – you can do so now and that counts towards “voting since December 1”.

I would vote “no” on this, sorry Ivan.

The last 3 months of Genesis have been sheer torture and I would not want to take rep from people who care for their mental health.

In fact I would give them extra rep for re-appearing if and when Genesis becomes a constructive place to be, or if and when they come up with awesome ideas for us to consider or re-consider - big vote of respect to @pedroparrachia here.

You have some dope moves though Ivan! It would be cool if we could devise some way to get you to calls:)

Don’t be sorry, use your REP to vote no! (I know you will).
Based on some analysis there are people with REP who have NEVER VOTED EVER. From what I understand, the early days of Genesis handed out REP like candy to jump start the system. Some of those early receivers never actually participated. Ever. I’d have to dive deeper to see what % of total REP is “dead REP” or “sleeping REP” (never used).

I see @Grace saying stuff like “IMNVHO, the Genesis DAO experiment is complete at this time. It was great, and it’s time for each of us to find another space for contribution. There are many DAOs spawned by this, including the ones I mentioned as well as DAOfest. Just find the right place for yourself.” [actual quote from Telegram chat today]

If there are a significant set of people, like her, who are “So Long and Thanks For All the Fish”, let’s zero them out (via REP slash). They are always welcome back, but they will have to work for their supper instead of rolling in and stirring things up after their long sleep.

This proposal could also be seen as a protective method - it kills the attack vector of an unscrupulous person buying the accounts of these dead whales and using the REP to take over Genesis from those of us still here. WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?

@grace asks (in Disqus, where I explicitly stated in the proposal that I would not reply) a few good questions:

  1. How many people would be left as participants if this was done? In other words, is this a takeover by a new group, and
  2. who are the participants in that group? Can you please provide the stats?

Answers:

  1. LOL - A “takeover by a new group” - yes, totally. A NEW group of… well… um… people actually participating over the last 10 minutes… no I mean 100 DAYS. I’d rather phrase it as a protective measure to keep the voting power of the DAO in the hands of the engaged.

  2. Great question! I will get those stats as to how many folks will remain whole if this passes (stay tuned). Remember, the idea is not to kill off inactive members but rather to massively reduce their power (they can still vote, just with diminished REP). Many of them probably don’t care because they have abandoned the project and if they haven’t… well all they need to do is vote here (yes OR no) and they are no longer part of the great REP culling of '20.

Kinda like the idea actually, I’d amend a few things to make it more “fair”

  1. Give longer notice, say for example, 2 months after this proposal successfully pass

  2. Perhaps worth slashing 50% rather than to 50REP?

I think it’s a fair proposal given one can vote “against” and even if it passes they won’t lose their REP as they actively voted. It’s kinda like “dead or alive” DAO member check.

The “longer notice” piece is not a terrible idea. If this one fails I would totally consider amending it with this in mind. It is fair to have a proposal pass and then quickly grab your stick and start poking all the sleepers with “hey - you better do something soon or this slow moving steamroller is going to flatten you”. Of course, a motivated person could do that right now (there are over 20 days remaining to vote).

The 50% vs 50 REP I am less sold on, unless, perhaps it was a 50% slash every month of continued inactivity after the first slash (aka don’t like the slash? vote once and you are safe).

I also imagined this proposal, if it passes, as a one time “reset” vs. ongoing pressure. It seems to me that there are a whole lot of people who got REP back at launch and who just never participated at all. This obfuscates reality, much like all the bitcoins that are lost in dead hard drives, locked in lost passphrases, etc. makes it so we don’t truly know how many BTC are “alive”. We also have no idea how much REP is alive. Is it 25% of all REP? 50%?

In whale vote news: it fooks like @FelipeDuarte is a no on the proposal. I’d love to hear his take on it.

@Grace asked the above - I have some numbers to share.

  1. We have seen 266 unique voting addresses (I will call them “users” here) ever.

  2. Only 103 (39%) of those users have voted since JULY 1, 2019 - this should be a bit of a wake up call to anyone who actually thinks that “Genesis DAO has over 200 members!!!” because while that is technically true, I’d argue it’s quite a stretch to suggest someone who has not participated in over 8 months to be much of a “member” at this point.

  3. 59 users have voted since December 1, 2019. This is only 22% of all users, but 57% of the users who seem like they might actually (but we can’t be sure) have been engaged in the project a while back.

Another whale (2% REP) downvoted, as well as a dolphin (.76% REP). Both are anonymous as far as their 3box verification + no name/description.

I’d really like to hear people ACTUALLY talking about this. Why the downvotes? There are so many reasons why someone might say “no” and in the interest of understanding this behavior I’m PLEADING with you to chat about it. Ping me on a fake telegram account. Respond here. Email me with a burner address to ivanthinking at the gmail… anything besides the dreaded silent thumb down of doom. It’s worse than when dad says “because I said so”

These are early times. We are potentially pioneering a new part of a technology/process. Now, more than ever, it’s key to understand - no matter how logical or ridiculous, why you vote the way you do. Maybe you don’t like me (personal), maybe the proposal breaks some rule or agreement (culture), maybe it’s disrespectful (social), maybe your friends are in the wings and not actively participating now and are asking you to vote so they remain in the shadows (social), maybe you think it’s too harsh but would favor something milder, or longer, (process) [see @exponent response above] or… the problem is that there’s no “why” here and it’s a damn shame to lose that context - whether you vote yes or no.

@parrachia. Thank you for saying:

“it’s just not feasible” on TG:)

Not feasible because? -I really appreciate you saying this btw- and agree, but struggle to explain why😳 .

My instinct is that it will do more harm then good - at least because one of the fundamental premisses of Holographic Consensus decision-making method is that voters vote on issues they consider relevant and not voting is also a form of responce.

So if voting turn-out is dropping this could be a sign that the nature of published propposal/propposals does not resonate with a high number of participants as sufficiently important to engage.

Whether or not this is a constructive natural effect could be evaluated, but it is imo a contributing factor of overall efficiency of decision-making at scale and indeed supports those who are motivated to participate in governance in their decision-making capacity in accordance with their reputation weight.

Does it dis-emopower those who whish to abstain from voting or are otherwise engaged for any reason? No. Is that a bad thing? No.

Why not?

Because:

a. having no time to consider your decision in an informed and responsible manner, or

b. having no opinion on a matter you are not a specialist on or are neutral about and wish to let others - better versed and more apt on that specific issue to be the ones to vote for or against.

Are valid reasons to abstain.

  1. Participating in a decision you are not sure of leads to bad decision-making.

  2. Reducing rep of people who chose to specialise and as a result have no opinion on areas outside their speciality for not voting outside their speciality could be counterproductive.

  3. Reducing rep of people who have suffered an illness/ a tragedy/ a natural disaster/ are travelling and heavily engaged elsewhere and could be returning with new skills, points of view, etc could could be counterproductive.

  4. Local consensus works just fine even on two votes.

And here I might make a suggestion:

Would if be a good idea if we had a threashold of how much total rep and/or total number of votes is necessary for a propposal to end? What if we set a threshold and if no-one votes on that propposal or not enough voters or rep had been devoted to it - it simply lapses and must be re-listed and re-considerex by voters again? This might provide an opportunity to the propposer improve it and to the community to consider it more deeply?

It is a form of response, but unfortunately it is an ambiguous one. It can mean any of the following: I don’t care. I don’t know. I like how the vote is going for/against now so why waste time? I am dead. I have no interest in participating in any way shape or form with this DAO. [Fill in your answer here]. It is similar to the “sin of omission” or “choosing not to choose” which yes, is absolutely one’s right, but perhaps a prolonged period of exercising that specific right has a real consequence besides making you look absent.

That’s up for debate. If you are correct that there are a bunch of “I am a specialist in the wings” people, the I would expect 2 things right now - 1. They speak up here (instead of you speaking for them) and 2. They vote “no” on my proposal because they don’t want it to pass. If, however, it’s actually mostly people who have long ago abandoned this pop stand completely, then it actually helps us to better see who is real in the system. Who is engaged. Who is still standing.

  • If you have no time (for 4 months) to ever make 1 vote, I’m not sure what your value to the DAO is.
  • This is a fair argument
  • I would hope that an engaged participant would find the time to investigate ONE issue to vote on over the time period I mentioned.
  • If you are a specialist who has NO opinion about anything besides your specialty, AND are not contributing that specialty to the DAO over a prolonged period, I’m not sure how useful you are to the project.
  • I’m iffy on this one. I agree with the premise, but something tells me that if this applies to anyone in this DAO it’s truly 1 or 2 people, not the majority of the non-participants. Look at my other data - over 100 people have not voted since last JULY.
  • Prove it :wink:

Good questions. Perhaps start a conversation and take what you learn and turn it into a proposal for voting? Why let me have all the fun?

I dont have time to write propposals😭. You start it if you can pls and let’s work together on it here, then others can have a say too, then we can see a task team form around that propposal and agree on a corresponding rep allocation budget. Can we do that? Like a family:)?