RFC : Riding The Wings Of Change

[SmartAPE]

@leyota

1 user = 1 vote doesn’t work because that cannot be verified on a mass scale unless we use KYC. Sybil attacks are trivial with the current system.

That’s not true. I already described (above) how it can be done. There’s no KYC involved in the process. As someone who knows stuff like this backwards, I can get it done in 1 day. Plus, Karma is already integrated into both Discourse and Discord. And we already have the Snapshot data and settings (which is where the strategy data is done).

@leyota

Your whole defense of what is considered a “person” is the discourse trust system and connecting to a bunch of hooks (which is a onetime process). This is so easy to abuse. Heck, if this was being implemented I am willing to place a large open bet that we will see drastic increase in the number of signups (which will all be 2nd/3rd/4th/… accounts) getting ready to improve the trust level. If every wallet vote mattered that much it would be so incredibly cheap to generate 1000s of verified wallets. Certainly less than the few million it’ll cost to buy tokens. To make it clearer here would be the plan to completely own a 1 wallet = 1 vote system.

Again - that’s farfetched. Any system can be abused. As I have explained above, with the systems currently in place, changing to a 1 Ape = 1 vote strategy in Snapshot is trivial. There’s absolutely zero KYC involved.

Also, your 4-step example isn’t based in reality because you’re assuming that those tools also have admin access to the data here. They don’t.

You’re also ignoring the fact that - as I mentioned above - changing the Snapshot strategy (their fancy way of saying settings) to only consider Apes with at least 1 APE to vote, takes care of that issue because in addition to using Ape (voter) based rules, you also create a financial burden for someone looking to game the system via bot created wallets.

See that image up on Karma? There’s no KYC involved. Only the wallet. You only know it’s me because, as a public figure, you already know who I am - and because I chose to disclose it. The same goes for other public figures in the DAO such as Yat, Alexis etc.

@leyota

This will not only be a nightmare for the mods to manage but voting will also become a joke. The owner of the largest “bot net” will decide where millions will be deployed. All that for what would probably cost a few thousand dollars.

You mean the team(s) we’re paying $84K per month will suddenly consider their job function a burden? I don’t think so. In the short time that I have been around here, they’ve proven to be quite capable. And that’s because they’ve done a fantastic job of smoothing out a vast array of processes which ensure that stuff like this can also be handled accordingly.

Again. Having bots isn’t relevant. They’re all over the place. And there are a myriad of ways to counter them. And in the case of chaging the voting process, countering them is trivial. Again - I’m not speaking as someone from the outside looking in. As a White Hat and vastly experienced IT and dev who has been doing this long before they had names for them, I know specifically what I am talking about. And I am ready, able, and willing to prove it.

@leyota

it is trivial for people to create 2nd accounts. So how are you going to solve this without KYC? Honestly if you solve this without KYC (i.e. verifying an account is one person, and that same person cannot trick the system again), you would have solved one of the hardest problem there is to solve right now. Literally. Even Sam Altman created an entire product (iris scanner) to solve this problem and you would have solved it with just software.

There’s no KYC involved. It’s all about a wallet that’s tied to an Ape.

@leyota

While I understand you sentiment about the current voting system, implementing your suggestion will make everything a joke. Much worse than it is now. Quadratic voting achieves some of the goals you want to achieve but it too is susceptible to sybil attacks. That’s why its not a universally used weighting system.

I disagree. Also, the current DAO voting system is already a quadratic one in which the vote credit cost is directly tied to the amount of APE that the Ape voter holds. And that’s the problem. Plus, right there in the historical voting data on Snapshot, it shows evidence of Condorcet paradox which just compounds the problem in its entirety.

@leyota

Also the 24 hours makes no sense to me. Not everyone’s life revolves around the DAO. Everyone has other things to do, and it’s already hard to be on top of everything. Having one busy day and then missing a vote sounds like a terrible idea to me. The DAO should be flexible to be inclusive, people shouldn’t have to contort to be in the DAO.

That’s not relevant. No offense but voting isn’t based on a person’s feelings or availability. Nobody cares. That’s how the system works. You’re not around to vote, you don’t vote. That’s it. All of it.