Tuesday, March 27, 2018

FCFL Vote Allocation Structures: Part 3

In my previous two articles about vote allocation structures, I described some of the goals of vote allocation and some of the possible types of structures that could be used in the FCFL Which approach do I think is best?

Overall, I think the approach of “one token, one vote…with penalty for large holders” will do the best job of accomplishing the goals (or what should be the goals) of the FCFL

Keep in mind that both the voting mechanism and the exactly distribution of tokens should be completely transparent.  That means that fans will have complete visibility into the voting, and they’ll know exactly when their vote (and the tokens they’ve purchased) are making a difference and how much of a difference they’re making.

Any system in which voting power is based on ranked holdings of tokens isn’t optimal because there will be many users for whom extra tokens are worthless.  For example, let’s say I have 100,000 tokens and the next fan ahead of me has 200,000 tokens.  In a voting structure based on ranked holdings, the next 99,999 tokens that I could purchase are worthless to me.  That’s a situation that the FCFL should be trying to avoid.

In addition, any system based on “one token, one vote” where large token holders aren’t penalized will theoretically allow individuals or small groups of individuals to control all votes.  That effectively makes 49.99% of tokens worthless, which is another situation that the FCFL should seek to prevent.

That leaves only one option from among my original suggestions: “one token, one vote with penalty for large holders”.  In a future article, I’ll get into the details of how that might work.

No comments:

Post a Comment