DAOhub 2.0: towards a communication platform for the Dao members

[hiromant]

Seems that most of the active DAO members will prefer a communication platform for DTH only, to prevent, or at least limit, spam, trolling, long unrelated discussions etc.

But, a platform where it is enough to have 1 token to post without restrictions, will not solve any of the aforementioned problems.

Everyone can easily acquire 1 token, in particular someone having bad intentions.

Such a system will not prevent Sybil attacks.There are two known solutions for Sybil attacks: PoW and PoS. For a communication platform PoS seems to be more suitable. It is also reflects the actual voting mechanism.

Hence I'd like to see a communication platform where a length of the allowed text to post per day is proportional to the number of tokens DTH has.

I stress that I don't think that the "whales" are necessary smarter or able to decide better. With that, I am convinced that the solution I suggested is the only one that would practically work.

[terranix]

Whales may represent organizations or hedge funds where a group of users have joined together to invest in the DAO (or may be someone with a lot of cash to hire analysts). We could use this as one sorting method, but I think it would be better if we allowed the users to sort comments and users on multiple different criteria.

• DAO Tokens
• Simple Upvotes
• Weighted Upvotes (e.g. 1 DAO token = 1 vote)

Any top down moderation scheme beyond setting defaults for new users is ultimately oppressive.

[thecryptofiend]

Also time of posting/activity based dimension like bitcointalk has may also help.

[hiromant]

Whales may represent organizations or hedge funds where a group of users have joined together to invest in the DAO (or may be someone with a lot of cash to hire analysts).

So what?

We could use this as one sorting method

I don't suggest a sorting method.

[Beez]

I don't think limiting text is the way to go. If I have a lot to remark on in regards to a particular topic, but I don't have many tokens, it's going to take me a number of days to get through it, and that's just really inefficient.

[TeknoTeddy]

I'm fine with a system that displays how many tokens we have. This to me allows more freedom for everyone. We can decide how many of our tokens we want people to know we have and if someone is creating a negative environment and only has a 1 or 2 tokens then we know we can just ignore them (or however we decide to handle the issue).

I don't think we should suppress speech based on token count (as long as someone has tokens).

[hiromant]

That's the idea, to hinder @Beez posting!

There are already open platforms for DAO discussions: /r/thedao, daohub, slack, irc, consider.it etc. I don't suggest to close them and no one can prevent DAO members from freely communicating.

I suggest, in addition to all this, to have this PoS special platform.

Why? Because the alternative is moderation.

1. Does anybody think that a constructive discussion can be held in open-for-all, unmoderated platform?

2. I don't trust much moderated platforms. We all saw what happened with /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk. I even wouldn't try myself as a moderator. Particularly when a large sum of money is at stake. Even smart and honest people make mistakes.

3. So, in addition to moderated platforms and open platforms I'd like to see a PoS platform. By the way, it is a very important point: the discussions in such platform will reflect the directions of the future voting.

If someone could make a proposal for developing PoS platform for the DAO, I'll vote for it.

[sco]

That type of single variable (holding tokens) reputation system is fundamentally flawed. Reputation should be modeled after human relationships. The more value that person provides to a given individual, the better the reputation is, when multiplied. across multiple individuals, that value is amplified. Trust takes time & constant effort by all parties in a relationship.

What we need a real reputation management system- which can be implemented simply; where by individuals click like on people's posts & those with the most likes are likely to be the most valuable, etc... the reputation system needs to be simple (like / dislike of posts or star ratings, or hearts for posts), but robust in that it's comprised of many individuals interacting with the reputation of a singular individual (anyone participating can like, heart, star, etc.).

These types of useful reputation systems already exist & exist on this very forum. How about we put a "like / heart" rating next to each username.

[hiromant]

All the reputation systems can be subverted with the methods of web brigades. We cannot ignore this when the decisions are about tens, and, hopefully, hundreds million dollars.

[sco]

Not if it costs to like... see: DATT (now called YOURS): https://www.yours.network/

Also rep history could be based on TX from OpenBazaar, etc... WOT (web of trust) takes in a multitude of inputs to achieve a reputation score- averaging out manipulations inherent in web brigades "attacks."

Again reputation would also have time factor, which also risk mitigate web brigades attacks. There will never be a perfect (instant & 100% accurate reputation system), humans are human- it simply takes time to build trust. Making it overly complicated is a waste & ineffective. Modeling it after human behavior with two major variables: "value of every interaction" / < time > = reputation.

[cybernatic]

How about viewing likes similar to http-links and apply an algorithm similar to google pagerank to establish repuation?

[hiromant]

Again reputation would also have time factor

Exactly, but the DAO doesn't have time. The proposals are coming.

Another point, lets imagine that the reputation system works, the "liked" users are indeed smart and honest. But what if they all are just very minor token holders. So even if they agree about certain decision, it will have no practical value. I think the most important discussion will take place when the "communicative power" of the participants is related to their voting power.

[Beez]

Well, the point with the reputation system would be to give more weight to their opinions, not necessarily their votes. So other people see that those opinions are highly valued and respected, and would listen harder to what they have to say.

[marcogiglio]

I think it's too difficult to do it a proper decentralized manner right now. And SWARM and basically all the Web3 vison is a requirement. "TheDAO" could contact ETHERSPHERE and Ethereum and see what can be done to speed up its development?

[NickyD]

"what if they are just minor token holders?"

My question to you is, so what? Let ideas stand on their own merit whether they come from small or large token holders.

Perhaps putting more faith in the best ideas rising to the top regardless of the source should be considered.

Even a one token holder should have the same rights as everyone else and I'm all for @sco's idea of reputation the time factor notwithstanding.

[himalayanguru]

I don't like the idea of more money more talking time. Not good.

Instead, I'd adopt the Swarm voteup/vote down strategy.
Similar to reddit! The most voted concern should always be accessible to the reader

[hiromant]

That's interesting. Why some people accept the idea that those who invested more should have more voting power, but reject the idea that they also also should get more time on a stage?

What's the difference?

Or, why isn't there much resentment about the coming PoS in Ethereum?

I mean, why not to build a protocol of Ethereum consensus or the DAO smart contract where the decisions would be done based on the reputation of the members?

[Beez]

It's not about giving them more time on stage, it's about taking away the time (space) from the other people. That's kind of like saying "internet fast lane" in ISP-speak.

[Hayden]

I agree with the general sentiment of others that when it comes to

1) ideas / arguments / issues / debate
- We aught to all begin with equal power to voice our opinion or state our arguments
- Let those arguments rise or fall on their merits as judged by everyone else within the DAO
- The ability for someone to make the most compelling argument or get as close to the truth as possible bears no relevance to their stake holding in TheDAO.
- In short: Having more skin in the game doesn't make you smarter.

2) voting on proposals
- Yes the final power to influence the direction of the DAO aught to be weighted according to each DTHs stake.

Thirdly, I would argue that it is in the best interests of the Largest stake holders to be in support of point (1) because I would argue that this will result in them being exposed to the strongest arguments/issues on each side of the debate and aught to result in them making the best informed decision for maximising their own ROI!

(As opposed to the big fish being able to throw their (possibly) "dumb" weight around and influence our very own internal media/information system)

3) There are very good ideas floating around for adjuvant methods for bringing to the fore the main issues/arguments and gauging which way the vote is likely to swing ahead of voting on each proposal. Such as: https://dao.consider.it/ (with some modification). This could be employed as is or could weight the votes according to each DTHs stake. The sky's the limit.

[randomguy]

If proposals are passed by the quantity of the DAO stake then why shouldn't there be at least one forum that organizes in the same way? It seems to me that such a forum would be the best one at least for predicting which proposals are likely to be authorized.