Bitocratic ideas

These lines I am writing are only intended to reflect once again on the bitocratic processes in Sovryn.

Many lines have been written on this subject in this forum before. Let me add these new ones, which I have also mentioned in the past.

Like many of you, I feel that every vote generates less interest, less participation and less debate beforehand. Looking into the causes, one may think that SIPs are unquestionable, that they are necessary formalities, or simply that the very act of voting has lost interest. In this case one would have to ask why.

I am perceiving that many people no longer vote because they believe that there is no point in voting, since the outcome is already written in advance. They believe that no proposal will fail if it is backed by sufficient voting power. Which is the case in almost 100% of votes.

No one doubts that whoever has the most voting power wants the best for Sovryn. And that is why the predicted outcome is the best possible. It is inevitable that everything will end well. And that is why it is not worth voting when the individual vote does not make a difference.

However, for me it is very important to restore the value of the individual vote. Because the highest turnout is not the strength of voting power, but the sum of the greatest number of wills. And I am sure they are going in the same direction. If the ship is to reach port, it is not the same whether we are all on deck, or sleeping in the cabin. Sharing the strategy is as important as voting for it together.

That is why I raised the issue in the discord and subsequently submitted some proposals in the form indicated by @soulBbit, which are the ones I present below together. Of course this is not in pursuit of a SIP, nor is it urgent. I am simply expressing my interest that it should not go unnoticed that Bitocracy in Sovryn is too important not to try to improve it, if I am not mistaken in my analysis.

My proposals

As I believe that every vote should be valued, however small it may be, so that we all feel part of the process, I put forward the following proposals:

  1. Subsidising the cost of the vote, I think it is around 1500 sat.

  2. Giving more information about the results. When the process is transparent, confidence in it grows.

I would love to know, in addition to the percentage who voted yes and no, the following:

a) Initial info: total possible votes and total possible participating voting power.
b) Number of wallets that have voted, and total voting power exercised.
c) Number of wallets that voted yes, and number of wallets that voted no.
d) Provide a breakdown of yes and no votes by voting power range.

This information would allow us to analyse whether the big and the small have the same views. We may find that they do.

  1. Rewarding participation, but not economically (because this could lead to an increase in participation linked to the economic prize, and not to the democratic interest), but with voting power. It would be necessary to think of a system of increasing voting power for those who participate frequently in the votes or subtracting it from those who do not participate.

  2. Allowing a democratic veto to the democratic vote. Let me explain: When more than a percentage to be defined (half, two thirds…) of the individual votes go in the opposite direction to the result finally obtained, this will have no value, even if it has been achieved with 99% (thanks to the voting power). If that happens, a new process of bitocratic discussion would begin, leading to a new election.

1 Like

The drop in voting addresses is related to the drop in community activity I would say and not necessarily a drop in voting interest particularly.

I see your concerns but in my opinion we should not complicate an already complex system.

I have not seen yet, a case where big addresses have turned a vote where the majority of smaller addresses have voted in the opposite direction.

I feel like the 99% consensus in voting is a symptom of finding consensus even before the vote and the goal has always been to discuss until we find that consensus.

I think Governance works very well and I feel like the more atractive the SOV Token becomes the more activity within the governance you will have.

I like the idea of rewarding the activity within governance. SOV rewards are the way to go because the token is the only way of getting voting Power within Governance and I feel like introducing additional ways of getting VP is introducing unnecessary complexity.