A proposal for an initiative to support the integrity of community voting
[1] Background. The IOTA community has decided to use its tokens for building the ecosystem and a large sum of money will come under community control. There will also be a similar need for further community governance as the new ecosystem tokens such as Shimmer are released. Up until now the IOTA Foundation has managed most everything and has provided control and protection. Now the community needs to organise and manage itself.
[2] Decision making. At the heart of all community decisions is a strong methodology for proposing change and for voting on those propositions. At the moment the IOTA community is reliant on a single method which has just been released. It is based on the system of “1 coin = 1 vote” and it uses the Firefly wallet where individuals can vote with their Miota. This is a powerful voting system and a great achievement by the developers, but “1 coin = 1 vote” has serious limitations. As can be seen in the graphic above, even simple decisions can be dominated by the ‘whales’ who own most coins.
The consequences of this can be serious for the community. If people see that that a few ‘whales’ dominate decisions then they reduce their participation. As has been seen in many other communities, sometimes the ‘whales’ allow an appearance of fairness for a while by abstaining from voting. Sooner or later, however, they participate in votes that they do care about and everybody realises where the real power lies.
Note that sometimes clever schemes are proposed to balance this out, for example Quadratic Voting. All of these can easily be gamed however by splitting ownership of tokens across multiple wallets. They are not a solution.
[3] Democratic voting. Most people consider that a “1 person = 1 vote” system is the fairest way to make decisions. They might wish to use that directly to make decisions, or simply to appoint appropriate people to whom they can delegate decisions (as in electing a Member of Parliament). In either case, it means that everybody feels that their personal vote has a chance of affecting the decision.
Within the crypto-sphere this is often seen as unachievable however. Most people participate using pseudonyms (e.g. @dumdave) to allow them to maintain their anonymity. That means that any one person can use multiple different identities, and so in principle could vote multiple times. Indeed, there might even simply be a ‘bot’ behind multiple identities. All of that is true, but it is not the complete story. For a community like the IOTA one, it is possible to implement a “1 person = 1 vote” system. This article explains how.
[4] Is a particular type of voting system always the best? No. For most community needs, “1 person = 1 vote” is the best solution for some types of vote and “1 coin = 1 vote” is the best solution for others. They work together, they are not exclusive.
For example, I can give an example from the discussions we are having in the Bridge Fund Committee — which is planning ahead for a BUIDL vote.
[Decision type A] Suitable for “1 person 1 vote”. The Bridge Fund will have to have some remunerated officers, and some basic principles of operation. There is no reason why these should not both be voted with “1 person 1 vote” provided that certain safeguards are followed, as described below.
[Decision type B] Suitable for “1 coin 1 vote”. A decision to dismiss the existing officers who are administering the scheme and replace them. Any decision to invest more than USD 50 thousand in a particular project.
The reason that [B] is superior in the second set of cases is that coin ownership is harder to game so it can be argued that it is best used for really big decisions. Some people prefer all votes to be type [A] but [B] is useful if it is carefully designed. In the ‘fire everybody’ example, the officers would be replaced but it would be under type [A] voting, so [B] can influence but not control.
[5] Overcoming the problems with democratic voting. The IOTA community has been around for many years and is very active. There are a large number of people who have demonstrated a positive involvement with both technical and non-technical aspects of ecosystem development. It is also very likely that the size of the community will grow enormously over the next five years. If the expected technical advancements are made, there could be an exponential growth in members.
That gives a limited time window to introduce the proposed system, which is called the IOTA Web of Trust. It seeks to make a “1 person = 1 vote” system effective by increasing the vetting of those allowed to vote. This is described below, and was successfully piloted with more than 24 community members in November 2021. It now needs to be implemented in a first phase that involves a core 500 members.
[6] What is a ‘Web of Trust’? In our context this means a group of people who are linked such that all new members to the group are validated by existing members against some pre-set criteria. These are examined in more detail below, but in outline constitute a ‘proof of (recent) contribution’ to the IOTA ecosystem.
In simple terms, the first members are validated on their obvious contribution, and then allow others to join provided that they have been investigated and found to meet the set criteria. In this way the group grows but is resistant to infiltration by outsiders with no real interest in Iota, or even those with hostile interest.
Because members have been investigated in terms of their participation in IOTA related activities, it is harder to achieve membership under multiple pseudonyms so as to be awarded multiple votes. That would require actively participating with different skills and personality within Discord and other groups. Achievable but difficult to maintain over time.
it is proposed that a simple bounty scheme with small rewards would be introduced to reward those who spend time identifying ‘double ID’ users.
More importantly, a few percent of people getting three or four votes each is unlikely to be able to sway votes where hundreds of people are participating.
[7] The process for acceptance into the Web of Trust (Phase 1). An example system: the new person might apply to be admitted to the IOTA Web of Trust through The Soonaverse https://soonaverse.com. That would provide access to a Web of Trust Space where a ‘badge’ application could be submitted, giving a Discord or other name by which contact could be made.
The Web of Trust has an initial gatekeeper (and in time, multiple gatekeepers). The gatekeeper carries out an evaluation which may be very quick in some cases. Note, this process is the one to be used for the first 500 members (Phase 1). Later expansion will use slightly enhanced methods. For the first 500, the method will typically involve:
[a] Direct communication to confirm ID. That is, exchange of information through Direct Message or other method to establish that any given pseudonym is owned by the applicant. Acceptable identities will include Twitter, Medium, Discord or Reddit handle etc or equivalent. Many applicants may choose to give their full real-world name if that is how the community knows them.
[b] Area of contribution. Many people contribute to multiple areas of community life but applicants will be asked to select a major area where they have demonstrated a contribution, and to provide a single sentence that describes that contribution. Examples:
- Developer of node software
- Participant in IOTA DAO Pioneers group
- Spreading the good word about IOTA on Twitter
- Writer of articles about IOTA technical issues on Medium
- Active helper in the General channels of the IOTA Discord
Notice that all that is being checked is active and positive participation over a period in excess of four weeks. That includes well argued but consistently challenging or critical comment. It may also include participation on coding, design, or many other areas even if evidence of that is never directly visible through Discord or social media.
[c] Assessment of evidence. The gatekeeper investigates whether there is evidence to support the applicant’s description of their contribution. That can usually be done by using the Discord search function or other equivalent in other services. Where necessary the applicant can be asked to provide the names of others who can vouch for their contribution.
If the gatekeeper is not satisfied, the applicant can be asked to reapply after a month during which they can make their contribution more visible, or to redefine the area where they have made a contribution.
[8] The process for acceptance into the Web of Trust (later phases). Once a core of 500 highly trusted people are enrolled, the whole process is put under review and plans made for expansion. This needs to ensure that the Web of Trust remains welcoming to all who wish to contribute to the ecosystem, or who are involved through the numerous projects that the IOTA system spawns. Typical methods may include:
[8.1] Reputation colonies. That is, a subgroup of the community with a particular interest who are given the right to recruit new members at a controlled rate. Should the new members prove to be admitted without sufficient evidence then the whole colony loses ‘reputation’ and its right to handle recruitment.
[8.2] Self certification. That is, certain pre-defined groups (e.g. Smart Contract developers) may be allowed a provisional membership of the Web of Trust against a promised performance.
[8.3] Overseas associations. Groups allowed to recruit within their geographic area within certain size limits.
[9] What are the IOTA Web of Trust benefits? The main benefit is being allowed to vote in ‘1 member = 1 vote’ decisions wherever those are required. It is likely however that the membership will be used for a wide variety of situations as others see the value of the certification. Certainly the Soonaverse badge system is designed to support badge sharing across interest groups.
[10] Timescale. Ideally Phase 1, the first 500 members, should be enrolled within 3 months. As soon as the Ecosystem enters a phase of rapid expansion of members, controlled adoption of this idea becomes harder.
About the author @dumdave (IOTA Discord): Amateur Solidity programmer but pro writer (and ghostwriter) of crypto related material. If you found this article sufficiently helpful then my Eth. wallet address for donations is here.
0x01ea4917885A9148B06cdB1d9de6F2365dC3B31A