^ 100% agree with this
I think more votes for larger apartments. Had all the apartments been in equal supply, 1 per vote was good, but here, the entire voting rights of the penthouse owner pie is 0.725% which is too low, despite the value and utility being multiple times of the others. Some rationalisation will be good. It should look to balance the voting pie across all 4 sizes. Not equality, but definitely equity will be good.
Good points. I think having the voting power be in relation to quantity of the type of apartment works!
I think the least arbitrary method for vote amount would be basing it off of mint price.
small = 0.069
medium = 0.12
large = 0.24
penthouse = 1.00
If small = 1 vote:
medium = 1.74 votes
large = 3.48 votes
penthouse = 14.5 votes
Maybe we can add to this a floor price coefficient at today price, like this it could me more up to date ?
Personally I think mint price makes more sense than current price. Floors are thin on large and penthouses. Sometimes mediums trade 10% premium, other times 50% premium. When do you adjust? If the community was valuable enough and decisions important enough, people may game the floors when the “vote adjustment snapshot” is recorded. Using mint prices is simple and seems fair enough to all parties.
We could have a system of activity based powerups. Perhaps all sizes start at a 1x vote multiplier, and as you play and interact the vote power climbs. Larger apartments may have a higher multiplier potential, where for example a small can reach a 2x, a medium a 4x, a large an 8x, and a pent a 32x. Upon transfer or sell, the voting power would restart, but could be salvaged if another same level apartment is acquired again. Different size apartments could level at the same rate, so its more “growing out of your small” than having some advantage because you have a pent.
Involved participants would see their voices grow and be encouraged by their increased interest translating to more vote in the project. Making the power non-transferrable seems like it would make sense to give increased voice to those that have earned rather than purchased it, while being salvageable gives grace to those that may choose to exit and come back later without losing progress.
This is an obvious issue. ERC-20 (Fungible) Token DAO’s are 1 vote per token, and therefore the monetary cost to buy 1 vote is always the same. In the last 2 governance votes, it has been 1 vote per apartment, and this is clearly not what makes sense. If you want to swing the vote, you can simply buy up Smalls. It is obviously unfair to higher size Apartments.
Mint Price: IMO the mint prices were arbitrary, and especially the mint price of Penthouse (1 ETH) vs Large (0.24) would mean that Penthouse would only get 4x the vote power of a Large, despite the ratio suggesting it would theoretically be worth 14.4927536232 (1000/69).
Small = 1
Medium = 1.74
Large = 3.4
Penthouse = 14.4
Floor: This makes some sense, and would give us this:
Assuming small = 1 vote
Medium = 2/1.7 = 1.22
Large = 5.38/1.7 = 3.16
Penthouse = 60/1.7 = 35.
Obviously you can’t have fractional votes, so perhaps it could be rounded up to 1, 2, 4, 35. The reason Smalls and Mediums are so close in value is because there is always a higher buy pressure and liquidity at the floor, plus there is no utility differences announced between small and medium, but that may change.
Relative mint size:
Small = 5000/5000 = 1
Medium = 5000/3000 = 1.66
Large = 5000/1000 = 5
Penthouse = 5000/69 = 72.46
Rounded this would be 1 , 2 , 5 , 72.
The suggested is:
Small = 1
Medium = 2
Large = 4
Penthouse = 40
It should be noted that a number of large holders will be able to swing votes. Creating any limits per account will not have any effect, due to Sybil attacks (splitting apartments between accounts). Therefore I will create another Proposal to counter this issue (Voting Incentives).
Disclaimer: I own some of all types of Apartments.
A linear relationship between apt size ~ votes could lead to a stagnation of vote and Webb’s future development or put it simply, direct bribery of vote that is led by the size of (future) capital, somewhat circling us back to the road of traditional business.
I agree with a logistic relationship with size ~ votes, analogous to the quadratic voting as proposed by Vitalik. i.e. the marginal increase in votes due to size increase decreases.
I agree with the item ratio being the main condition.
Regarding using floor price- this could create issues down the track due to lack of listings for rare items- i.e. No penthouses for sale except one that is 99999 ETH, while having a lot of 10 ETH small/medium listings would create exponential voting power for penthouse owners.
Small apartments get: 5k total vote power
Medium apartments get: 6k total vote power
Large apartments get: 4k total vote power
Penthouses get: 2.7k total vote power
Small/Mediums being the largest voting powers by activity, and having the largest listing, balances things out between the assets, that are not listed up. However, there are a lot of accounts hoarding the small/medium apartments.
Honestly voting power by the floor makes the most sense, question is, how it should scale if one owns a lot of assets.
It is more reasonable to set according the mint price
Agree with ABBBBBBB
Small = 1
Medium = 2
Large = 4
Penthouse = 40
I like 1 vote per owner. Looks more powerful to who is in the community than how much money they have. IRL, we have the power concentrated on people who have more money. They buy needy people’s votes and can influence more people. In Webb3’s case, we could try to avoid it and let people have the same power once the diversity of experiences it’s a powerful tool in product development.
Not sure if it works for people’s equality here, but it’s worth a shot. We are here to make the difference and be more inclusive than web2 and real life.
It sounds great, but in our pseudonymous realm it’s too easy to be sybil attacked and very difficult to prove one person only uses one wallet.
Agree with @cry.eth , quadratic voting as specified by Vitalik here: https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/1203700017787232260?lang=en is way too hard to police/prove. To confirm, a sybil attack is: " A Sybil attack is a type of attack on a computer network service in which an attacker subverts the service’s reputation system by creating a large number of pseudonymous identities and uses them to gain a disproportionately large influence ." In effect, just splitting your apartments into multiple wallets to get increased vote power.
We can save the id of the apartments of that account that voted. However, if another account tries to use the same, it cannot be counted as a vote if someone transfers 1 apartment for each account before the vote is a risk we can’t avoid. This person will pay more tax and look like someone who has a lot of money to do it.
All the vote systems will have some point of risk/failure, and we need to choose what we think it’s the smaller one and try to build something to difficult this point.
In my opinion, all of it is more viable to someone who has money to spend to influence the decision, unfortunately.
good job mate, I love it. makes sense
Mint prices can be good indicators for vote share though. It is obviously much more moderated than floor prices, but it is a fair distribution. Penthouses having 4x the voting power of Large is good enough IMO.
The idea should not be to equalise the voting power with the economic value. Voting power should not be an entirely driven by the market value. A stupid analogy may be that Universal Adult Franchise offers one vote per citizen regardless of the wealth and value they create for the economy. This is to bring democracy in opinions, equitable distribution of powers as a community etc.
In the NFT space, economy is obviously a big part of the equation and hence we can’t really try to make it so democratic. But, there should be a mixed bag of voting power driven from both; (i) ensuring greater power for larger apartment holders because of the faith and stake they have in our ecosystem, but also (ii) ensuring other community members, who may have shelled out larger percentages of their portfolio to get their hands on even one small apartment.
To address both, mint prices are a good indicator of proportional sharing of voting power where utility and price differences are factored in, but it does not dilute the smaller apartment votes as much. Also, many penthouse owners generally would have many other apartments too, so it protects them from larages or smalls outvoting them to an extent.
The mint price might be too subjective since we don’t know how that number was decided and the changing dynamics in the market post mint.
I think one assumption we should consider is that a lot of Penthouses are owned by a whole community, sometimes 10,000 within that community and that community paying 10x more than larges which is a big commitment to make- so only having 4x the voting power of large may be too low, if there are 10,000 votes going into each penthouse vote.
One variable that isn’t subjective is the apartment size ratio- maybe this with some weighting to determine the outcome. As long as each apartment size has roughly the same total voting power so no one apartment size can swing a vote.
Apartment size count is 5000, 3000, 1000, 69. Converted it would be 1, 2 , 5, 73 based off count ratio rounded up. Maybe penthouses can be reduced to 40 which is less than 10x the large voting power, and which aligns with AB’s current math on current value x ratio.
Technically someone could just buy 40x smalls instead of a penthouse (if penthouse was only 20x small voting power) if all they cared about was voting power based on current prices. But, I do agree no single item should have too much power given the web3 decentralisation thesis.
One thing I feel is that the 1, 2, 5 for the small, medium and large is the perfect ratio for votes. As you go up in apartment size you have larger communities within them, though not always the case.