TL;DR: An on-chain reputation-based voting system to better inform $VITA tokenholders
Problem: VitaDAO has five working groups (WG): longevity, tokenomics, awareness, operations, and governance. Each WG is composed of people with varying levels of expertise. Currently, there is no way to quantify that expertise. This is a problem because currently anyone can put a proposal on-chain if it gets 10 votes on Discourse and then it is left up to tokenholders to decide. Thus, each working group’s expertise isn’t captured and tokenholders, many of whom aren’t informed about the proposals, don’t have easily understandable metrics to judge one proposal vs. the next. This means decisions on how VitaDAO spends its time and money are lacking in quality control.
Solution: A quantitative on-chain reputation-based voting system that will capture each working group’s overall assessment of a proposal that it puts on-chain. The weighting mechanism for each WG will vary, but ideally it should be an aggregate of the reputation-weighted voting of each member where reputation is a composite of each members’ real world and online activities. For example, in the longevity WG, someone who has a PhD in a biomedical field should have higher weighting in their vote than someone who doesn’t, with all else equal.
This system has the following benefits:
- Quality control: Help the entire VitaDAO community be more informed on each proposal regardless of whether they use it for their own voting.
- Maximally empowering: everyone who joins VitaDAO can participate. One may not have much reputation to start with but the path to building reputation will be clear.
- Transparent and fair: that it will be on-chain means it will be more transparent and less corruptible than a closed system
- Interoperable: ideally by being on-chain also means the reputation system would be interoperable with that used by other DAOs. This will solve the problem StackOverflow has where only some groups accept their reputation system. The interoperability approach could draw cues OAuth, which is a universal login mechanism created by a consortium involving Twitter and others.
An informal reputation-based system is already used by some in the VitaDAO community in voting on-chain. Meaning, some people already vote based on how they see other’s vote. The idea in this proposal is to formalize and automate that activity. Also, the reputation-based vote would ideally precede the tokenholder vote such that tokenholder’s have the full picture before they vote.
Currently each WG other than the longevity WG is ruled by a small group of people where consensus is easily reached without the need for much formal due process. Thus, only the longevity WG with its 20+ regularly active members needs such a reputation-based system at this time. However, in the future as each WG grows, the plan would be for each WG to adopt a similar approach to what will be done for the longevity WG.
The current quality control approach in the longevity WG is to have Senior Reviewers provide feedback that will be included on the on-chain proposal to inform tokenholders. This is a fine stop-gap measure for now, but it has issues in that: 1) subjective criteria determine who is a Senior Reviewer 2) only a few people’s feedback is captured on-chain and the rest of the longevity WG is disenfranchised. To be clear, this proposal won’t eliminate the 3 Senior Reviewers feedback or 10 Discourse votes needed to go on-chain requirements. This proposal is meant to augment those off-chain metrics to make the overall system more robust.
What happens next
This VDP is to solely determine the community’s interest in developing an on-chain reputation-based voting system. If the community approves this proposal, the specification can come in a later VDP. The specific technological implementation that the longevity WG will use will be a collaborative effort between VitaDAO’s technology WG and longevity WG. It could leverage data oracles such as how Chainlink is helping the Associated Press develop trusted news information.
- Agree with revisions (please comment)