Recently reading the @trostparadox post and all the comments on the post, I came up with some ideas that I believe can help solve some governance issues.
In fact, some people don't care about Governance or the future of the community, they just want to produce, get their rewards and cash out. And there's no problem with that.
Other people want to keep their tokens in the community, but they don't care much about the future, and believe there are people more interested who will make the right decision.
There are those interested in the future of the community and even if they don't have many tokens they are always interacting and looking for solutions for the future.
And there are investors. People who have decided to put their money in search of returns and for that they want the best for the community (or for its rewards).
There are likely more user-type scenarios, and this will have to be figured out over time, but what we do know is that whether we like it or not, everyone has some weight in the community.
And seeking the equivalence of these weights, I believe that the solution for governance is to find the Pob Factor.
POB factor
Who is the most valuable to the community, the top 1 stake or the top 1 commentator?
Who is more important, someone who generates engagement or someone who brings good content?
I believe that all these parameters must be put on the table when we are going to define the power of governance, after all, regardless of importance, all these users are under the same roof.
SteemMonsters defined that 14 variables would be considered so that the user has the token that will give him the power to define the future of the community.
Each variable has its value, as we can see in the image below.
Along the same lines, what variables would we have in POB to define the importance of the user for the future of the community?
I believe we can find that common denominator. Currently our top 1 stake is @proofofbrainio, but what good would all its accumulation be if there were no posts and comments to be voted on?
Should the community's top 1 comments be worth equivalent to it? Or close?
To qualify comments we can use the @amr008 system, I believe it is an excellent and reliable way.
I don't know how to answer, but I believe he has some value.
Therefore, I suggest and I am open to editing the table below according to the comments, that we should consider the weight of the vote for each category. Help me make this draft into something definitive. Comment here, or create publications expressing your opinions about this idea.
Weight Table
| Action | Points |
|---|---|
| Stakeholders | x points per staked pob |
| Comments | x points for comment quality |
| Publishers | x points for publication quality |
This table can have several other variables that would define points for the user.
These points will then serve to vote and define the direction of the community.
I believe that these points should not have an option to be purchased as was the case with SPS, if the person wanted to buy they would have to purchase POB, interact with the community, or any other action that the community found valid to generate points.
We could even have a site like HiveBuzz where a ranking is kept up to date with the points that each user has.
Remembering, this is a draft, 100% open to changes, comment below on how to improve.
I believe that this way we can come close to a balance in the question of how to solve the community governance problem.
Interesting concept.
One thing to keep in mind is that whatever criteria you establish, you will get more of that, as people try to climb the ladder. So you want criteria that are very objective and cannot be easily schemed or gamed, and that clearly improve the overall community as people strive to be atop the leaderboard for each metric.
For instance, if one of the criteria is "# of comments posted" you run the risk of shifting engagement from deep and thoughtful comments to lots of shallower comments. Of course, you could also try to have a metric that rewards deep and thoughtful comments, so that you reward both.
So I thought of the @ AMR008 bot, where it tries to measure the quality of the comments, and so far it was a great method
I am aware of his work, but not the details. The thing to keep in mind is that once something becomes a metric used for governance or financial gain, it becomes a carrot (changing behavior) rather than a yardstick (reporting behavior), and will encourage people to exploit any weaknesses.
No doubt such a system would require multiple iterations to make it truly robust (which can be readily done on Layer 2 with minimal risk).
I wonder why people seek not to make the effort of a job which, it seems, is of high value. Why on earth would you want to automate something unless you are also disinterested in the task itself? After all, you only make automated processes possible when the actual act of human labour is disagreeable and tedious. So why do one want to screen comments for quality if at the same time you don't want to do the work yourself and would rather do something else? Where there is no interest in doing something, how can governance take place in a trusting way? ( I am not meaning "you" but "one").
Trust is something that we want to get rid of as much as possible because we distrust each other. The blockchain serves as a trust provider in which one switches off the human component and prefers to trust the "unbiased technology". For me, this is not coherent.
It is as if one were to say that only when work is done without any human influence have we excluded corruption, manipulation, nepotism and other displeasures.
... Work, if it wants to be of high quality, does not happen en masse and or in an automated way, it is not a commodity by the metre, it cannot be marketed with a watering can and it needs time.
In my time as a PR professional, I pursued the concept of small but subtle and very targeted, but in precisely not a mass-generated work and had great success with it. I realised four measures per year, which always involved only a few conversations with the respective decision-makers in a given segment. This agreement was to the win of all who took part. I had very much fun in realizing our PR-concepts, the media was delighted by what we offered in return, the readers won through participation a product of uniqueness and high quality. I marketed chocolate bars (trivial and cheep ones) but added value with nowhere to buy, handmade or hand selected items. I added a theme to it (themes like "magicians items, booklets to learn card tricks, Halloween, riddles, fairy tales, comedy", products which let the senses feel well etc. etc.)
Transferred to the Hive's sphere I only have so much time to add comments of value. I don't and can't mass produce them. That would be ridiculous and to whom my comment is of quality, is also very differently approached and received. No automat can judge it by numbers, if you ask me. But maybe I am wrong. Dunno.
So I find your answer of much intelligence,
Though I really have no definitive answers on how to create a rule-less sphere where rules nevertheless are being used. :)
I mentioned to you the systemic approach in reaching consensus. Did you have time to read it meanwhile?
Greetings!
I could probably write a bot that could generate comments that that bot would think were quality comments. :)
Yes you could. The difference is that I mentioned his bot for being a bot that already exists before I made this post, and that a lot of people know and approve of.
In a free market like we are, anyone is likely to make a bot. The reliability in it that is the differentiator.
Your bot would have to show itself to users to be reputable and quality, for people to adopt it.
It would be great if you did, the more competition, the more quality.
I wouldn't make such a bot. I am stating that if you used a bot to reward people based upon it analyzing quality of comments then a bot could be designed to game that bot.
This depends on the person's nature and not the bot itself.
That's a nice solution. I talked about that in this post : Let the Spectrum be in POB !. It's even better than just giving points for high IQ people, or how people think. I also proposed to have an option to post only in POB without hive, or post in both. Just like d.tube is working.
We all are here for each other and it a great idea you are sharing this with us in this community ..
Nicely said.. The criteria should be stated, some people are good in dropping intelligent post that leads to the comment but the weight of the comments sometimes is always higher than the post..Good content can generate engagement so Someone who generates good content should be recognised and weighed..
The stakeholders, publishers and commentators are all relevant in the community, I believe if this table is taken into consideration part of the problem could be solved..
Bruh! I think this intelligent, because while talking about what's important to the platform, we only consider or two factors.
But the factors you highlighted here are all important to the community.
Stakeholders, comments and publishers are equally important.
Brilliant.
There should be another category for Contest holders and Engagement promoters. I think they are adding a lot of value to the platform. Although they will be covered up under the Publishers category, still I think they do deserve a separate one.
This is a nice idea and I think it’s a very good way to develop the community but I believe some people will abuse this idea of governance. If there can be and implemented solutions even before the application it would be better.
Good idea, thank you for sharing, it creates room for further improvement.
Good idea, thank you for sharing, it creates room for further improvement.
So this is essentially a way to give value to other aspects other than stake while still valuing stake? Interesting...
this is my will
Good information, very wonderful article, keep it up I really appreciate it.