Shielded voting for all elections

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@furiousanger has requested to extend the community discussion period for this AIP idea. This topic will automatically close a further 7 days from now. We encourage the community to continue to engage in thoughtful discussions through constructive criticism, honest feedback, and helpful suggestions.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

-@Facilitators

1 Like

Updated by adding clarification of scope

1 Like

Hi @furiousanger ,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in roughly 24 hours.

  • If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.
  • A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.
  • Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?

We look forward to hearing from you.

-@Facilitators

Hi,

Extend for another 7 days please.

Thank you.

The game theory changes completely when votes are shielded / hidden from public view.

I believe this change can add value to how voters vote as it will be less of a popularity contest / being apart of ‘right crowd’ at the time, but it does not change the fact that post voting, all votes will be visible, so in essence you could still argue that nothing has changed.

Also having voting visible throughout the process, allows for the candidates (if they have the right drive) to double down and try harder if they are not doing well and this will be taken away.
Who doesnt like an underdog making a comeback?!

1 Like

Don’t forget that Delegations can choose to have shielded voting on or off. So if delegations leave it turned off then the real time results from delegation voting could be very important indicators.

1 Like

Hi Mo,

Many thanks for taking the time to consider this idea and its implications.

So there is a flip side to the valid point you’ve raised - when people see they are doing badly they give up and those in the lead become more confident - which we’d argue leads to less competitive “elections”.

We also believe that the first time this change is applied (next election cycle in December if passes) we’ll see the largest voter turn out in our history. Reason being many know the old line “X has X amount of apecoin on the sidelines if needed”. By removing the ability of participants (and voters) to confidently know their own or others vote totals (ofc roughly one could make a tally similar to exit polls via canversing, but you’d never truly know right), so they will need to deploy all their “sidelined apecoin”.

Also, possibly we could benefit from including our full list of benefits in the AIP - initially going for a “short and sweet” proposal made more sense with some added comments & reasonings below - but allowing each point to be pushed back on (if needed) maybe better, as comments often get lost into the ether.

We will keep this discussion open for a few more weeks, in hope that voters and participants can comment and/or add insight during the election process as is.

Thanks. GL with the elections. :muscle::muscle::handshake::handshake:

1 Like

Thanks for taking the time to forward the discussion. Unfortunately we cannot control how others implement and deliver their voting, but this is a valid consideration as we expand over time.

Your point currently only relates to a tiny number of delegations (two afaik) - Mocaverse being the main one - as most delegations do not use snapshot and their votes are conducted internally and privately (meaning many delegations already have a shielded voting system of sorts in place.)

We normally see over 40m apecoin turnout at elections, and although 6.3m is a lot (moca), in the finality of most elections, this will certainly not be enough to guarantee victory.

There is also the possibility (and we are not advocating to control how delegations conduct their own internal voting), that once this AIP passes MOCA will potentially align with how we deliver our votes and use the same method for apecoin elections&selections?

I am very appreciative of your reply; would love to hear any additional concerns/suggestions/pushback etc, and will leave this discussion open for a good few weeks more.

Thanks BB.

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@furiousanger has requested to extend the community discussion period for this AIP idea. This topic will automatically close a further 7 days from now. We encourage the community to continue to engage in thoughtful discussions through constructive criticism, honest feedback, and helpful suggestions.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

-@Facilitators

1 Like

@DavidW

If you had any thoughts on this would love to hear them. Mainly looking for pushback of any kind. But ofc happy if you only have positive points to make. Thanks.

Thanks for asking. I pushed for shielded voting at CityDAO primarily because, in our CIPs, certain individuals were influential, such as the founders, guild leaders, facilitators or well-spoken citizens. When their names registered as voting for (or particularly against) specific improvement proposals, others were likely to follow suit. In some ways, this became like a proxy for a representative democracy. If people trust you and you vote against a proposal, they may vote against it, too, trusting that you know what you’re doing.

I found that this held especially true for national or ethnic affiliations where English is a second language. We had large international communities who often voted as a bloc, and when one international community representative (either formal or informal) voted on a proposal, others in that international community often followed their lead, particularly if their English wasn’t as strong and it was a challenge to read and digest a long proposal.

Even with shielded voting it is sometimes possible to identify voters by the sheer quantity of tokens (or in our case NFTs) that they wielded in voting, but it was certainly less identifiable than with their names attached. Thus, I am generally in favor of shielded voting. My understanding is that you’re proposing shielded voting for elections as a test-case before rolling them out to all AIPs. I see this as a very reasonable experiment and support this idea.

1 Like

Maybe those with strong connections can get feedback directly on how people vote, where as newer nominees and or candidates won’t have the social capital for such feedback during the voting.

Also would we get to the point of people doing campaign polls?

Just a thought.

1 Like

I love that you brought up social capital in DAO voting. This is some Pierre Bourdieu driving a lambo type action. Someday we’ll all be living in Michel Foucault’s panAPEticon.

1 Like

Amazing points raised. Thanks.

I believe once we increase our voter turnout/numbers this certainly could be a possibility and perhaps a strong case could be made. But for now I don’t think people trust enough in the process to have AIP vote totals hidden until finished.

Thanks again. Looking forward to everything you will bring to the apecoin DAO. :handshake:

Agree - this would potentially lead to polls for those inclined.

Whether polls would undermine the aim of this idea - we all know polls are often wrong, but that they do add additional speculation and excitement to elections, (as well as stats which can be useful). Would they be a bad thing? Potentially not and they may in fact be beneficial, but also not a concern to dismiss - noted (and something to keep in mind & monitor once/if this AIP passes). :handshake:

I think we should test, see how it plays out, if we get into a situation where the process becomes flawed/undermined then we would revoke and revert back to the original method. (But initially I don’t see “exit” type polls causing this.)

Brings up two other topics - accessibility & alliances - and how we approach those.

Thanks BB - these are exactly the kind of feedback/questions needed to determine/assess whether the change would be worth while. :handshake:

1 Like

Hi @furiousanger ,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in roughly 24 hours.

  • If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.
  • A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.
  • Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?

We look forward to hearing from you.

-@Facilitators

1 Like

Hi,

Leave it open for another 7 days pls - will be the final time. Then after that we’ll move to next stage.

Thanks.

2 Likes

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@furiousanger has requested to extend the community discussion period for this AIP idea. This topic will automatically close a further 6 days from now. We encourage the community to continue to engage in thoughtful discussions through constructive criticism, honest feedback, and helpful suggestions.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

-@Facilitators

1 Like

This tweet should be added. Helps people understand one of our reasons for this AIP: