Token holders vote to decide categories prior to proposal review

Shower Thought: The EOS token holder community votes on categories for what the WPS will provide resources.

Example: through a smart contract, the token holder-- the user, shall be able to vote for a list of general categories (extra BP infrastructure, social benefit programs, The Arts and Culture, sustainability, education, DAC and DAO programs, arbitration management...) the user should be able to allocate a percentage to each of the existing category or add their own category for additional stake. After the voting period (on-going but reported periodically) for deciding the categories; the highest rated several categories will each each serve as a quota to limit what the project managers when needing to select and recommend proposals. This will serve as a guideline and keep a balance of what the community needs, fairly distribute resources, and prevent over extraction of resource for specific purposes.


  • Can I suggest a hybridized attempt?

    WPS identifies several key categories to work with, that proposals must fit under....initially.

    Future versions of WPS can accept the user-defined category, or vote on new categories later. The reason I mention this is that with everyone free-form picking their own category to limit the PM's we're going to end up with a "Boaty McBoat Face" scenario. There'll be a ton of people that want to see anything that gives the token holders benefit, the whales will want to see only categories that benefit them, etc... and nonsense submissions will pile up.

    For the initial MVP1 -> 2 periods I think the categories are excellent but we should force the WP's to fit into them, and then curate them as for how well they fit into each. The MVP1 group can vote on the provisional categories. There might be different levels of stuff, for instance, we don't want all "Arts and Culture / Social Benefit / Education / DAC" and nothing else. What about the infrastructure needs? Emergency needs? Spending tokens will drop value if they're cashed out to Fiat (which that'll happen), and people may not want that to happen (Article by Dan himself on BitShares about this).

    We force them into categories we can treat several or more as a group. We defined the initial groups ahead of time, so we can get out in front of the application of funds to each category also. Then we're prepared for the first rounds. Referenda can change this later. Also, a problem with free-form entries is that they are hard to curate. We'll have pluralization, misspellings and others coming up as competing categories and getting voted on. "Votes split between 'Improve' and 'Improvements' as a category". There's also the "Boaty McBoat Face" effect, we cannot forget how that went :smile:

    The categories you listed are good ones:

    • Extra BP infrastructure
    • Sustainability
      many sub-categories could exist here

    • Arbitration management
      In terms of - Funding them? I'm not super sure how they get compensated today.

    • DAC and DAO programs

    • Education
    • Social benefit programs
    • The Arts and Culture

    I'd like to add:

    • Emergency Fund (Break Fix / Security) - A Just-in-Case, get's funded by WPS now and then proposals against it could be fast-tracked. Not a large amount, more than a "Get started" amount probably not advisable. Helps if things are hacked, BP disaster of some kind strikes, etc..
    • Legal Fund - Another type of "in case" for issues that come up as a hot issue that needs some cash now. Fast approval, smaller amounts.

    Other legal issues and "break-fix" would fit under "Sustainability", and perhaps we'd call these two just "Emergency Funds".

    • General Dapps:
      • EOS Voting / Wallet Management
      • Other Dapplification of EOS functionality for the masses.

    I'd like to critique:
    Extra BP Infrastructure: I think we're paying them a good amount to say afloat, especially if many are on VPS systems (I'm not confirming that research just mentioning it). Should they want to expand I think that should be on them. If we fund it, we socialize it, and they won't compete as easily. I'd love to see someone come out of the blue and just take the #4 position or something because they invested in themselves.

Sign In or Register to comment.