This is out of the scope for v1. In proposed v1 gov power is delegated to House of Stake, so the Voting Body is limited.
Again, it’s better to deliver good enough solution in few months than spend years on ideal solution without delivering.
That being said, I made a proposal for v2, and this is part of the spec. It will take time to develop and it requires a strong proof of humanity.
Yes, but Cosmos is long behind us in every way.
I’m not so sure. In which ways it is behind?
Cosmos definitely has much bigger adoption, is more decentralized and has working on chain governance, can execute 10k+ tps while being sybil resistant…
Excellent point- I truly believe that the primary determinant of participation levels in V1 would be the legitimacy attributed to it by the NEAR community.
But that begs the question- what measures can we take, to ensure that the system ‘could’ be considered as ‘legitimate’ ? One obvious way- would be make the ‘actions that determined the outcomes’ transparent.
For example; for me to trust the ‘decisions made as a result of this poll’ what I demand would be- that the voters list is public. Since in my mind there lays an already formed assumption (which formed as a result of my readings in gov forums about such instances recorded in public in the past) that governance forums are the easiest targets for Sybil attacks. IF I was a determined actor of malice, these polls would be my easiest consensus manufacturing mechanism.
HONEST DISCLAIMER:-- This is a personal reflection on systemic risk. IT IS NOT AN INNUENDO/ ACCUSATION ABOUT THIS POLL IN ANY WAY<SHAPE<FORM___
I would say yes to this, having regional hubs would best reach local communities on a large scale and get much work done faster. The marketing Dao cannot continue making decisions for the African community as there is no African amongst the marketing council. Outsiders cannot relate to our beliefs and culture. No one can make decisions for Africans except Africans. Thank you.
Yes, there is no much support for stake weighted voting… which puts us in a difficult situation. Designing a new solution with requirements I listed above will push back the whole plan.
Like I said, stake weighted voting is not that bad for this initial, limited phase. So I don’t see much problems. I would prefer that we move forward and iterate. Rather than spending months/years of finding and discussing ideal solution.
I think the idea of having regional communities is great. It would also be good to check who has done a good job so far, not only in numbers but also built on Near, worked closely with the developers and opened new wallets on Near or brought investors. We need to work more closely together and exchange ideas with the other regional leaders (eg. Weekly or bi-weekly meetings) There are already over 900 projects on Near, most of which are supported by local communities to represent their project. It may be natural for some to do it, but little or no appreciation is given. Also you have to prove every time you did a good job and fight your way through here to get the budget instead of working closely together and concentrating on the plans. There are some communities that have been here in good times and bad and continue to support 7/24 without funding. I advise you to carefully review the list of active communities, get in touch with them and learn what they have achieved so far, what are the next plans and how you can support them.
This is extremely important and needs to be done ASAP.
We need to be more organized and goal oriented then focusing on numbers. Every country has different potentials, but digital marketing tactics stay the same which require some strong skills and exp. We need to educate and guide guild leaders more!
As far as I observe most guilds focus on quantity rather than quality which is extremely dangerous and often missed by the observers!
We should encourage them to work more effectively by brainstorming together and proposing great ideas, viral campaigns(series of events that will have a snowball effect), localized content/ easy-to-use engagement ideas and support them with adequate funding than negotiating on the proposal price. Also, every guild should be audited by local agents to be organized by a strong coordinator. Why? For instance, If you don’t speak Turkish, have no idea about the local market, not be familiar with local communities tendencies you wouldn’t precisely be sure about what Turkish guilds r actually doing and whether they really care about Near or not at all!
It not reasonable to throw similar proposals each month with just fair outcomes but expect miracles. You cannot be walking in a race where everyone else is running.
Thank you for pointing out what is on my mind. I guess it is that the ecosystem puts more pressure on numbers than quality; there’s kind of a way to see how it benefits the ecosystem, how many wallets are you going to create or users? So whenever issues like this start coming out they are indirectly referring to the numbers. That is why user retention is one of the most difficult things in the web3 ecosystem because the majority of the ecosystem is more concerned with numbers than long-term sustainability.