Vote allocation structures are a pretty complicated topic,
so this is going to be a multi-part article.
Until very recently I had just assumed that the structure used by FCFL
would be a simply “one token, one vote” structure. However, in a recent post on their Telegram
channel, someone associated with FCFL (I can’t remember who) indicated that
this would not be the case. They
indicated that the model might look more like the payouts in a poker tournament
and implied that that would prevent any one voter from completely monopolizing
control of a team.
Before I get into the pro and cons of how various structures
might work, I’ll address what I think the goals of the voting structure should
be:
- Provide incentive to all fans to buy FAN tokens, regardless of how many (or few) they already hold
- Remove the possibility that any one fan or small group of coordinating fans can gain complete control of a team (which would remove incentive for anyone else whose tokens are locked to that team)
- Be reasonably easy to understand
- Be perceived as ‘fair’ by most fans
Some of these goals are similar for the structures of poker
tournaments and of daily fantasy sports tournaments (an industry that has a lot
in common with poker and in which I have a lot of experience), while others are
different. As I discuss specific
structural options for FCFL voting, I’ll get into some of the lessons learned
from those industries and how they apply here.
It’s also worth noting that the FCFL may or may not allow
different teams to eventually adopt different vote allocation structures. While this would certainly be in keeping with
the idea of giving fans as much control and choice as possible, it also might
allow fans of some teams to make decisions that go against their own best
interests. FCFL’s decision on whether to
allow this may ultimately come down to how strongly they believe in the wisdom
of the crowd.
No comments:
Post a Comment