Testing Governance

One of the ways to find and promote superior governance models is to sit back and let the ecosystem play out a sort of “natural” selection. Taking this sort of evolutionary approach should be avoided for 3 reasons i can think of:
Saving time
Saving resources
Saving reputation (adoption)

Instead experiments could be made. Games with incentives can be designed to create a competitive (0-sum) or collaborative (non-0-sum) environments for DAOs to interact to exhibit various capabilities.

Competing/collaborating agencies in a zero-sum/non-zero-sum scenario on a sufficient time-frame could reveal key insights as to the sustainability of different governance structures or efficiencies of different settings & combinations of schemes.

The parameters that can be varied are:
(In)Equality of funds
(In)Equality of reputation
Constraint tresholds
Types of schemes
Number of agents
Federated v assembly v …
(Some of these properties could be previously encoded in the subject controllers)

The requirement or the success parameter could be set to measure the desired characteristics such as:
The ability/flexibility of an agency to unlock protocol upgrades
Constraint removal/addition
Token printing etc.
(I would appreciate if you can think of more)

These all are consensus challenges and different governance structures will have different experiences in reaching or trying to reach that goal. This is why i think its possible and relevant to run such bounty competitions on the platform.

1 Like
1 Like

I really like this insight! I agree with you that just letting the evolutionary forces playing out can be very costly! So I’m all in for simulated situations.
Games are one way to go about it, but I also like the idea of agent-base modeling. There are a couple of people in crypto playing with them, but I only saw ABM being related to DAOs in this talk and in the research description of P2P Models.
There’s definitely a lot of fertile ground here!

1 Like