Dissensus DAO

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
So i've been thinking about starting on actual blockchain projects, and I have a number of working ideas, and one of them is turning Dissensus into a DAO.

Now a DAO is a Decentralized Autonomous Organization, which just means group of people who need to coordinate some collective decision making. This collective decision-making can be embodied in smart contracts, algorithms that can handle data on a blockchain.

So it can be an interest group, an artist collective, a family, an asset management firm, a company, a nation of citizens, etc.

Any group of people that need to collectively coordinate decision-making. DAOs can allow for completely horizontal, programmatic governance. They can also be programmed to favor certain parties.

And I was thinking about how Dissensus could be represented as a DAO. I'm not sure what kind of decisions we would need to be making collectively, but that doesn't need to stop us from hypothesizing, and perhaps eventually experimenting.

The leaderboard thread relates this next part.

DAO governance is embodied by token distribution, which can be programmed from the offset, and the programming itself can be the subject of governance, i.e. voting on how to update the code.

So here is my initial formula for determining how many tokens each Dissensus member would get, in pseudo-notation:

Square root of number of posts x (1 + reaction score / number of posts)

in tighter notation, let n be the number of posts a member has made, and let r be the reaction score

(1+(r/n))√n

Haven't put in the actual numbers yet, as doing so would require having decided on a moment to base the count on, but I assume this would put @luka ahead of everyone else.

But, in theory, if there was someone who was below luka in post count but high enough above him in terms of ratio of reaction score to post count, his lead may be offset or even lost.

If I didn't add the 1 to the ratio of reaction score over post count, then the ratio as a multiplier would decrease the value of the post count.

And so a formula like this would determine the amount of DIS tokens each member would receive, and each DIS token would count toward that member's voting power. Again, I don't know what we would be voting on, aside from what the best pinhead meme is, where the best dogging location is, BPM required to break someone out of their capitalist-realist stupor, etc.

Aside from the distribution formula, we would need to determine the voting power per token as a function of the amount of tokens held by the voter. In the spirit of bottom-up governance, that is the spirit of blockchain, I suggest we take a logarithmic approach.

If the voting power per token was 1, we would have a linear function, wherein someone with 100 DIS would have ten times the voting power of someone with 10 DIS.

A linear function of voting power would look like this. Let $ be number of DIS tokens

f($) = $

If the voting power per token was logarithmic, as in the below, we would have a system in favor of small-cap voters:

f($) = log2($)

In the case of the above function, if you had 8 DIS, you would have 3 votes.
If you had 16 DIS, you would have 4 votes.
If you had 32 DIS, you would have 5 votes.
If you had 64 DIS, you would have 6 votes.
[...]
If you had 1, 073 ,741, 824 DIS, you would have 30 votes.
etc.

So this means that the voting power per token drops off as the member has more tokens. The voting power is itself weighted in favor of the small guys, and thus the system is that much more difficult to game. The math can be changed so as to minimize the rate of dropoff of voting power per token.

The supply cap of DIS could determine the asymptote of voting power.

This is one of the reasons I'm always talking about blockchain. Also, I am presently intoxicated, but I believe the math bits are not problematic.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
But in a real situation, we would be voting on code changes with system-wide economic ramifications.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Given the logarithmic voting power, we might not need to take the square root of the post count, but instead just use the post count as it is.
 

suspended

Well-known member
What do we do with the tokens? What's the DAO for? It all seems reasonable, but also I think having a reason is good
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Yeah no reason right now, aside from experimentation in a benign setting, getting a feel for setting up something like this. I wouldn't want to actually mint anything on a mainnet, just keep some kind of private testing environment. Monetary value of DIS would be irrelevant, the value would only be immanent.

But yeah what would we be deciding? Don't know. Without an answer there it wouldn't even be much of an experiment. But really I might just settle for any excuse to start trying these things out.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Biggest issue with the formula would seem to me that reactions were only introduced two years ago. (I think? Wasn't around.) So old members have a big disadvantage.
Yeah we could incorporate that into the formula, account for the transition into the reaction-enabled format.

(square root of ((post count before transition x 2) + post count after transition)) x (1 + reaction score / number of posts)

Although again the "square root of" might be unnecessary, even suboptimal.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
I assume all of the parameters involved in that formula would be more or less straightforward to directly access in code.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
If there was to be an official Dissensus documentation published as, say, a book, a DAO would be an ideal vehicle for coordinating decisions pertaining to the content/structure of the book.
 

suspended

Well-known member
If there was to be an official Dissensus documentation published as, say, a book, a DAO would be an ideal vehicle for coordinating decisions pertaining to the content/structure of the book.
I wanna do this and then leave the forum forever and never look back
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Coincidentally, I watched The Full Monty last night and I thought it would be fun to organise a Dissensus Stripper group.
You're not put off by the fact that @padraig (u.s.) is probably the only regular to semi-regular member here who has a body shape other than 'stick', 'barrel' or 'blob'?

Although I guess that would be in keeping with the film...
 

sufi

lala
So this means that the voting power per token drops off as the member has more tokens. The voting power is itself weighted in favor of the small guys, and thus the system is that much more difficult to game. The math can be changed so as to minimize the rate of dropoff of voting power per token.
Doesnt that mean that the entire enterprise is subject to the human factor? If we can decide whether the initial conditions favour @luka or not, or impose whatever sort of regime we choose?
dissensus doesnt really have decision points, but i think having a DAO, or an NFT or a blockchain sounds fantastic, as long as it satisfies the conditions alluded to in the post above https://trends.google.co.uk/trends/explore?q=dissensuscoin
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Doesnt that mean that the entire enterprise is subject to the human factor? If we can decide whether the initial conditions favour @luka or not, or impose whatever sort of regime we choose?
dissensus doesnt really have decision points, but i think having a DAO, or an NFT or a blockchain sounds fantastic, as long as it satisfies the conditions alluded to in the post above https://trends.google.co.uk/trends/explore?q=dissensuscoin
Yeah we can program it to be entirely agnostic to post count and reaction score, and just give every member the same amount, irrespective of their contribution to the forum.

That would be the antithesis, the thesis would be to give everyone a number of linear-voting-power DIS tokens that reflects their individual contribution to the forum, and the synthesis (or a synthesis) would be to give everyone a number of logarithmic-voting-power DIS tokens that reflects their individual contribution to the forum.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
So yeah I'm of the notion that @luka @craner @IdleRich etc should have a bit more of a say than we others. How much of a bit depends on the math we could all initially have one vote to decide on.
 
Top