[bisq-network/proposals] Natural delegation on DAO voting (#34)

[sqrrm]

Having just voted for this month, using `0` when I wasn't familiar with the work, I've got a few thoughts.

The delegation of votes must happen somehow or the DAO won't work. I wonder how to judge requests where I only partially know the details. For example, I might know in detail about half of a request but not know anything about the other half. To vote `1` on a request where I only know about half the details I would have to research the other half at time of voting. The nature of how we work is might be that this is the typical case and that's manageable, I can investigate the half I don't know much about. If on the other hand work is spread even more, say I only know about 10% of the request as do others. I would be unlikely to vote `1` and perhaps the remaining collaborators as well since we all know only 10% each. This might be a non-issue, just a thought.

Another thought that struck me is that if the break between proposals and voting phase is short someone can add a request late in proposals phase giving little time to comment before voting starts. Once voting starts it's less likely someone who has already voted would go back to look at a request to see if there are new comments. If `0` is the default someone can ask for compensation for no work and with no comments on the request it would get all `0` except a `1` from the person with the request and the request would be accepted. How do we avoid such cases, it seems like there is quite a big incentive to try to ask for compensation if the likelihood of acceptance is high.


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/34#issuecomment-410210249
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20180803/4495cdab/attachment.html>