-
1 ApeCoin - 1 Vote means all ApeCoins are treated equally.
-
Without KYC it is almost impossible to say 1 person 1 vote. Anyone can open as many wallets as they like. In fact this is much more dangerous and easier to game.
-
KYC for many is against the general principle of web3 DAO movement.
-
1 wallet - 1 vote isn’t equal as it disadvantages those who hold more than 1 Apecoin in that wallet.
-
Mocaverse as an example has over 2000 holders with 300+ who vote in their DAO. It isn’t one organisation with one CEO making the call. Expanding community DAOs no matter how hard can solve many of your concerns.
-
Even if you delegate you can choose to vote how you like and your vote choice not the community DAO vote choice will be reflected for your voted ApeCoins.
-
That’s patently unfair. Always has been. Heck, lots and lots of books and research papers have been written about why it’s bad to tie monetary values to a person’s voice. 1 Ape != 1 APE because the latter ties a monetary value (as in rich vs poor) to the former. In fact, even in a govt, the whole fight about Citizens United and Dark Money in politics is the on-going fight specifically for this.
-
It doesn’t involve KYC. And yes, while it’s trivial to open wallets, it’s not trivial to tie them to Discourse - let alone Snapshot - in order to vote. All this would take is the same Karma type validation that’s already in place. Karma is a very powerful tool which can have a variety of settings to ensure that the DAO member is a valid one and not a bot or someone trying to game the system. Not to mention the fact that the Snapshot strategy can even be setup to only consider voters with at least 1 APE in their wallet. Right there, it becomes a pretty expensive and time-consuming exercise for someone to game the system. There are so many ways to do this.
-
It has nothing to do with KYC. How does voting via an anon wallet (the address is visible, you know that, right?) in which the Snapshot strategy settings only takes into account the wallet and not the wallet value, have anything to do with KYC?
-
You just made my point. No. You’re wrong. 1 person = 1 vote as in 1 Ape = 1 vote is the core basis of fairness and equality. Voting should having NOTHING to do with how much APE you hold. Are you serious? You’re suggesting that it’s fair for one entity to have more power over another because they have more wealth. You know that’s how slavery started, right? You know that, even as I type this, conflicts are being waged over this very thing, right?
-
That’s not relevant. They have the same problem that we do. Not to mention the fact that they’re intrinsically tied to this very same DAO via the IP owners. And people voting based on their choice instead of wealth, has nothing to do with “one CEO making the call”.
-
Yes - I am aware. And similarly, you can still delegate your vote - regardless of wealth. That’s the point.
Do you think all companies should have no private ownership or investment? With each employee having an equitable vote?
You can view delegates like unions/clubs and nothing stops those unions or groups with shared interest or values voting together.
FYI everyone has a voice in this discourse if you own 1 ApeCoin.
Right now voting follows the norm in many DAOs and more decentralised say than companies which many have class A and Class B Shares. So often companies control and voting is more centralised than 1 ApeCoin = 1 Vote.
No, I don’t think that - at all. I don’t understand how this is related to voting though?
I know that. And last I checked, the unions/clubs voting mechanism isn’t tied to how much money each member has. As a member of several orgs - with voting rights - I would know.
Yes - I am aware. But not when it comes to voting, they don’t. Why? Because the voting is decided by the amount of APE someone has - regardless of their “voice”. Basically, the bigger your APE bag, the louder your voice.
That’s absolutely not the same thing. There’s no correlation - at all. Owning a class of shares vs owning a number of shares aren’t the same thing.
We can agree to disagree. I respect you have your opinion.
Absolutely! And likewise. It’s through discussions like this, that we learn new things, value opinions - even if we disagree with them. I find that when you’re in it to learn - and not to win - you gain a lot more because respect tends to be a lot more valuable than clout. I would rather gain the former because the latter is largely inconsequential.
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.
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.
- Buy a VPN subscription. Create an account in each region. Note the VPN region ↔ account connection,
- Use GPT to write variations of replies and like each others post to increase trust level.
- Keep tabs open and click through all posts to fulfil reading time and other misc requirements.
- Hire $10/hour labour in Asia to do the above en masse
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.
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.
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.
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.
People looking to potentially game trust levels is definitely something that we are looking at internally @leyota. I would add that Facilitators are doing a good job at keeping an eye on this while we look into solutions.
AC
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).
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.
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.
There’s no KYC involved. It’s all about a wallet that’s tied to an Ape.
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.
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.
Welcome! What are you referring to, specifically? Revising the voting strategy up on Snapshot to reflect 1 Ape = 1 vote?
I want to - again - point out that AIP-288: Adopt Shielded Snapshot Voting for Elections and AIP’s failed to pass for the very same reason that people are opposed to changing the DAO voting system to one that is beneficial to ALL and not just to the rich - in a plutocracy.
And this AIP by @br00no was a good one designed to also address a specific issue in the voting system.
Excerpt from the rather direct and succinct abstract:
“Engagement is diminished and voices silenced, with potential for corruption greatly increased, when voting identities are visible during a live vote. Shielded voting is a right everyone should have, and the proper way to go.”
About 9 whales killed it. Why?
People here keep going on and one about KYC at the slightest opportunity, but yet, an AIP like this gets voted down.
It’s almost as if this DAO wasn’t primarily setup to succeed nor to be prosperous. In fact, I would say that since its inception, it probably wasn’t designed to last as long as it has. I say this in all seriousness because when it comes to crypto there’s no taking chances with how things and people are. If this DAO was designed for the betterman of ALL Apes it wouldn’t put in place a voting process that’s designed to favor those with money over those without.
I am saying this again, if bold steps aren’t taken to make a course correction (in various DAO processes) - while we still can - it’s going to either die, or remain within a 127K hodler bubble riding the inevitable wave to zero. Mark my words.
Viva La Revolution! 
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.
How is that not based on reality? Are you saying what I said cannot be done? Are you saying one person cannot have 2 (or more) vote worthy accounts?
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.
This is completely irrelevant to any of our points. Most of the DAO are not public figures so this does not apply.
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.
Yes because there aren’t 100s of accounts being created everyday to game the system. Do you think things will be manageable if there are 100s of accounts posting garbage just to increase their trust level? When the incentive is so high (ability to pass AIPs) there will be bad actors. And your proposed system is so cheap to abuse.
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.
How? Can you lay this out in detail? I hope you don’t plan on relying on such a simple system like karma. Again like I said, trivial to connect karma accounts to multiple discord/discourse accounts.
And I am ready, able, and willing to prove it.
Please elaborate because so far I haven’t heard of a single defensible way to prevent one person from creating 2 voting accounts.
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.
This is false. You can read more about quadratic voting here.
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.
yea but people make the rules, not some AI. People make rules that make sense to them. I’m pretty sure you’ll find little to no support in restricting voting like this.
I said that what you outlined in steps 1-4 cannot be done as described.
I never said that “one person cannot have 2 (or more) vote worthy accounts”.
That’s not the point that I was making. Don’t obfuscate it.
You claimed that it was a KYC issue. I said that it’s not.
The only reason that I mentioned the public part is to illustrate that unless you knew (as in KYC) who I was, you wouldn’t know who the wallet belonged to.
ergo. You know that the wallet belongs to SmartApe who just happens to be Derek Smart, is because I chose to disclose it. The system didn’t do that. I did.
I never said that either.
And your inference that because 100s of wallets can be created so the voting system should remain as-is doesn’t have any merit because by that reasoning, nothing online can be implemented out of fear of exploits.
I am illustrating to you that just because you think up a scenario which you believe can occur, doesn’t make it so. And I spent the time explaining to you why that is, and also how it can be alleviated.
How? Because there are a myriad ways to solve that problem.
And now, you’re saying that Karma is a “simple” system but yet you’re perfectly it OK with that “simple system” being the voting platform. 
Connecting acounts to Karma is irrelevant. How the voting data is handled is what matters. Who cares how many accounts are connected to Karma if the vorting strategy is designed with parameters that weed out bogus data/users?
Actually it’s not. This is what a quadratic vote means.
“Quadratic voting works by allowing users to “pay” for additional votes on a given matter to express their support for given issues more strongly, resulting in voting outcomes that are aligned with the highest willingness to pay outcome, rather than just the outcome preferred by the majority regardless of the intensity of individual preferences. The payment for votes may be through either artificial or real currencies (e.g. with tokens distributed equally among voting members or with real money).Quadratic voting is a variant of cumulative voting. It differs from cumulative voting by altering “the cost” and “the vote” relation from linear to quadratic.”
It’s why I specifically stated that :
“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.”
In other words, like it or not, because whale wallets are tied to the vote count, it’s a form of quadratic voting by the very definition of a cost basis. The value is already in the token. The issue is that Snapshot has a shoddy explanation and implementation of it.
It doesn’t matter what I want. I’m just stating the facts. That being, voting doesn’t care about your feelings or schedules. Take the dog for a walk and you miss a vote? That’s on you. It has nothing to do with AI.
I said that what you outlined in steps 1-4 cannot be done as described.
i am saying I can. Because it’s really that simple. Maybe we agree to disagree here.
You claimed that it was a KYC issue. I said that it’s not.
Nope. I just said KYC is the only way to ensure one person one vote. Every other method (excluding biometric verification) is strictly worse.
ergo. You know that the wallet belongs to SmartApe who just happens to be Derek Smart, is because I chose to disclose it. The system didn’t do that. I did.
Again it’s trivial to create online personas and claim this person is from x, and does y job. Reddit has so many bot farms, and your recommendation will just create a race to create a new type of bot farm.
And your inference that because 100s of wallets can be created so the voting system should remain as-is doesn’t have any merit because by that reasoning, nothing online can be implemented out of fear of exploits.
Yes but we should not implement things that are so easy to exploit. It’s like deploying a smart contract with an extremely obvious vulnerability. We deploy it anyway because the current system is not to your liking.
And I spent the time explaining to you why that is, and also how it can be alleviated.
You actually didn’t though - as I said many times above. You keep saying you mentioned ways to stop this, but all you’ve said so far is “trust me, I can do it. I’ve already told you”. Again, please tell me how.
And now, you’re saying that Karma is a “simple” system but yet you’re perfectly it OK with that “simple system” being the voting platform.
What? karma is not used for voting at all. We use only snapshot. Karma just connects a few things together. I think you need to thoroughly review how the current system works.
Connecting acounts to Karma is irrelevant. How the voting data is handled is what matters. Who cares how many accounts are connected to Karma if the vorting strategy is designed with parameters that weed out bogus data/users?
How will you find all the bogus data? Again like I said, if every person has atleast 2 accounts, and some spend more time and create 10s of accounts, that is a strictly worse system than the current system. Those who have more time will plough their time into creating their own voting ring. Far worse than just token weighting.
Actually it’s not. This is what a quadratic vote means.
In snapshot quadratic voting means something very specific. My link explains it. Wasn’t talking about it generally.
Again want to very clearly say you claim that you know how to weed out bogus data or how to fix sybil attacks but I have not seen any actual solutions other than trust me bro
And I am saying that just because it’s simple to do doesn’t mean that it’s effective - especially if there are solutions to counter it.
You said KYC is the only way to ensure one person, one vote. I said it’s not, and that you don’t need KYC. I have been really clear on this.
That bots can be created doesn’t mean that they can be used effectively in the manner that you describe.
You have zero evidence that it can be exploited, let alone in the manner described.
I didn’t because it’s beyond the scope of this discussion. If this were an AIP, naturally, as I tend to be, I would be thorough.
Similarly, you saying that it can be exploited, and me saying that there are ways to suppress that, is the same "trust me, I can do it. I’ve already told you” that you’re advocating. The difference is that I believe 100% that it can be done, and that I can do it. To guys like me - who actually dabble in this - it’s not rocket science.
You misunderstand. Karma is used to authenticate users tied to the same systems used to vote. Don’t be condescending or I will disengage. I don’t talk about things that I am not familiar with.
You’re still going around in circles. The idea isn’t to “find all the bogus data”. It’s to prevent it from happening, and if it does happen, what mitigating steps to take. The former can be done by using a system that ensures that voters fit specific parameters such as creation date, KAPTCHA type auth, wallet value etc. e.g. the steps to tie an account to the system for access to Ape Assembly are specifically to mitigate such access. You can’t use bots to do it.
Right. But that’s not my fault. It’s why I pointed out the difference between their use of the term. Even if their explanation and implementation are different, that doesn’t take away from the fact that they have a shoddy explanation and implementation of it. I was already familiar with their usage and definition. It’s why I pointed it out in the first place when you first introduced it in this exchange.
I never said anything about “how to weed out bogus data” nor “how to fix Sybil attacks”. I have simply stated - with copious amounts of clarity - that a new voting system doesn’t require KYC to be effective. And also that bots aren’t the problem that you make them out to be. I also stated that there are a myriad number of ways to prevent such attacks in a bid to build a robust voting system.
The “trust me bro” inference is a weak attempt to discard - out of hand - my counter arguments. And you do this while espousing the same “trust me bro” semantics with your own claims. Claims which I have respectfully countered with what I believe to be reasonable explanations while taking at face value that you actually believe everything that you’re saying. Don’t do that. If you knew anything - anything at all - about my skillset, it would be immediately clear that to you that I know what I am talking about. You on the other hand are anon to me.
And I am saying that just because it’s simple to do doesn’t mean that it’s effective - especially if there are solutions to counter it.
How? You keep saying this without ever saying what it is. I feel like it’s no point asking you how because you are never going to say this.
You have zero evidence that it can be exploited, let alone in the manner described.
i just laid out a way to exploit it. Would you like me to create a second wallet and show you that its possible? Are you willing to put a bounty on it? In fact if the bounty is big enough, I’ll even create 5. This is the thing. I’m willing to put money on this - or rather put money where my mouth is by making a bet.
Similarly, you saying that it can be exploited, and me saying that there are ways to suppress that, is the same "trust me, I can do it. I’ve already told you” that you’re advocating. The difference is that I believe 100% that it can be done, and that I can do it. To guys like me - who actually dabble in this - it’s not rocket science.
yea not really. It cannot be done. If you can do it as easily as you claim to do it, you would have literally solved one of the hardest problems in crypto. I mean this quite literally. I want to repeat this again so you understand the gravity of what you are claiming. If you have figured out a way to stop sybil attacks, you have means of raising 10Ms in funding and starting a huge services company that can cater to literally every crypto company - anyone who ever does air drops would be extremely interested in your services.
So you have to understand why I find it extremely hard to believe your nonchalant comment about solving one of the hardest problems.
You misunderstand. Karma is used to authenticate users tied to the same systems used to vote. Don’t be condescending or I will disengage. I don’t talk about things that I am not familiar with.
I see you are starting with the threats again. I’m sorry you feel that its condescending, I didn’t mean it that way. But you’re wrong again. If karma disappeared right now, APE voting will go on without a hitch. Karma has nothing to do with our voting system. This was your original quote:
Karma is a “simple” system but yet you’re perfectly it OK with that “simple system” being the voting platform.
Karma is not the voting platform.
The “trust me bro” inference is a weak attempt to discard - out of hand - my counter arguments. And you do this while espousing the same “trust me bro” semantics with your own claims. Claims which I have respectfully countered with what I believe to be reasonable explanations while taking at face value that you actually believe everything that you’re saying. Don’t do that. If you knew anything - anything at all - about my skillset, it would be immediately clear that to you that I know what I am talking about. You on the other hand are anon to me.
I’m not interested in your anon vs non anon bias here. I see that you have espoused your dislike to anon accounts, but to me the proof is in the pudding and not the chef. I want to make a few points clear again.
You claim to have a way to prevent sybil attacks without KYC. i.e. you expect me to believe that you have a way to stop each person from controlling multiple voting wallets. Because without this feature your proposed system falls apart. If you have this system, I strongly urge you to start a company and offer your services to crypto companies. You are claiming to have solved one of the hardest problems we have.
If your system involves the current toolkit of services, if you put out a bounty, I can create X number of accounts all validated by karma. It will show you how brittle the system is and how easy it is to game.
Unlike you I’m not asking you to trust me. I offered up the exact way I’d do it, and I’m offering to do it as well. You have not offered any specifics, so it literally is trust me bro
… Hey Guys, i also have some accusations and some Data proofing it , but i also decided not to show the Data….
LoL … jk
I never made that claim. YOU introduced Sybil attacks in a bid to justify your position that you can’t secure the system without KYC. I am telling you that you can secure accounts without KYC; ergo no concern about Sybil attacks in such a new system. I went to great lengths to explain this.
You said this here:
“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.”
I said this here:
“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).”
I doubt that you actually know what a Sybil attack is. I can help.
"A Sybil attack uses a single node to operate many active fake identities (or Sybil identities) simultaneously, within a peer-to-peer network . This type of attack aims to undermine the authority or power in a reputable system by gaining the majority of influence in the network.
The fake identities serve to provide this influence.
A successful Sybil attack provides threat actors with the ability to perform unauthorized actions in the system. For example, it enables a single entity, such as a computer, to create and operate several identities, such as user accounts and IP address-based accounts. All of these fake identities, tricking systems and users into perceiving them as real.
The name of this attack was inspired by a 1973 book called Sybil, a woman diagnosed with a dissociative identity disorder. In the context of attacks, the term was originally coined by Brian Zill, and initially discussed in a paper by John R. Douceur, both at Microsoft Research."
Also, have you heard of solutions such as zkSnarks?
You just keep throwing words around, while repeating the same thing over and over. It’s exhausting.
I am going to say this for the last time, then I am going to disengage because, once again, you’re not discussing in good faith. You’re never - ever - going to beat me at this. Ever. But it’s OK to keep trying.
Did you read the definition of sybil attacks? Because if you did you would realize that you were arguing that you have a way of preventing it with your 1 wallet = 1 vote system. I don’t think you even realized that.
I am telling you that you can secure accounts without KYC; ergo no concern about Sybil attacks in such a new system. I went to great lengths to explain this.
You went into great lengths to explain absolutely nothing. Literally. There are absolutely no specifics other than, “I can do this”. You said many words, yet said so little. If you deny this please post where you explained how you will ensure that one person controls only one account i.e. how will you ensure the system cannot be sybil attacked?
Interesting you were policing my tone earlier but then you went straight into condescension town with the sybil attack definition and took a childish victory lap of you “beating” me, whatever that means.
What’s even more hilarious was you didn’t even know about zkSnarks until yesterday when Gerry pointed it out to you in discord and you literally said “you are the second person to suggest this. Though I am familiar with it, sadly, I haven’t had the chance to look at it closely…” 
And suddenly I am also discussing in bad faith after you literally ignored every other point I made and the the one point you replied to doesn’t even make sense. Pretty convenient. I guess you “beat” me by pretending other people’s words don’t mean anything 
sigh
I sent you a quote from a definition. I explained why it’s immaterial in a system that doesn’t need or use KYC. Stop with the circular arguments. That’s a sign of weakness.
I already explained that it’s beyond the scope of this discussion, specifically because I need to sit down and write it up for an AIP. And also because I have yet to explore other solutions, one of which I posted in my prior comment.
It’s called humor. Hence the meme.
You’re wrong. Gerry and one other person suggesting it doesn’t mean that I didn’t know about it. Are you even serious? I didn’t mention it in this thread because, as I have said, I still need to explore suitable solutions that don’t require KYC. Keep trying.
You are. It’s very clear. And you started in another discussion, after which I made a decision to ignore you. In truth, having blocked you on Discord because I didn’t pay too much attention to who I am responding to, I ended up accidentally responding to you here. There’s no way to block you - that I can see. But I now have a mental reminder to just ignore your feeble attempts at winding me up.
ps. ack! I see now why I am seeing your posts. I had you muted instead of ignored. Problem solved.