ALO#YQRGFSJK> Should the ones who hold the most ADA really have more votes than everyone else? -
Wed. Jan 19th, 2022

Should the ones who hold the most ADA really have more votes than everyone else?

cardano reddit

Should the ones who hold the most ADA really have more votes than everyone else?


Should the ones who hold the most ADA really have more votes than everyone else? – Reddit


42 thoughts on “Should the ones who hold the most ADA really have more votes than everyone else?”
  1. I believe Charles has addressed this in some past ama’s. Yes, it does favor people with more ada than others.

  2. If I put my life savings into ADA I have more to lose if the network doesnt succeed so I vote accoridngly.

    Why should the guy who threw his lunch money into the system be given more voting power to compensate? For sake of “fairness”?

    That doesnt make much sense to me.

  3. In a decentralized system where determinism is required, coin balance is the obvious answer.

    The only question you have to ask is if the distribution of coins is fair.

    The idea that large holders are somehow bad and small holders are plucky Robin Hood characters, is bullshit.

    Large holders have far more at risk, and deserve a bigger say. Any means you try to use to make large holders lose voting weight, will simply descend into Sybil attacks.

    The only possible solution is DIDs, if they can be shown as secure.

  4. Blockchains are not nation states. You cannot apply same “fairness” logic to both these cases. PoS is based on the idea that attacker must have skin in a game so he compromises his own resources if he damages the network. It is the fairest possible solution we have so far.

  5. I think people with more ADA should get more votes. How would you even enforce limits? If you limited by wallet, presumably a person with more ADA could just split their holdings into more wallets if they wanted more votes.

  6. Game theory. People that have a substantial stake in ADA have an incentive not to screw it up. Skin in the game.

    This is really fundamental for the security and governance of any coin.

  7. Imagine if every fool on here had the same voting power as people actually highly invested in something they’re most likely to have a better understanding of than some dude trying to make a quick buck.

  8. I have a decent amount of voting power and personally I will only ever vote for policies that promote stabilization of the underlying infrastructure and always prioritize security, stability and stewardship of the network. I’m sure many have a similar philosophy. Time warps every system though eventually. It’s the history of the world

  9. Yes because theoretically they have more to lose in case bad decisions are made. If anyone could vote with equal power, it would be a mess of trolls holding 1 ADA and bringing the whole system down for lols.

  10. Low key we got some people who will just bitch until they have an equal say. Mob rule…I mean democracy…is hilarious.

  11. Yes, there’s no way around this.

    If you make it so everyone with 1 ADA or more gets to vote…

    …then millionaires just create 1 million wallets to vote with.

    There is no way around this.

  12. Perhaps this research paper will give you some insight:

    IMO, those who risk more, have more to lose, and will want what’s best for the network. If the rich attempt to create a plutocracy, people will leave the network, the value of ADA will fall, and their attempt will ultimately fail.

    What keeps their incentives aligned is the fact that participating in the Cardano network, and holding ADA, is completely voluntary. If there ever comes a time when participation becomes compulsory, then there is reason to worry, but, as long as participation is voluntary, ADA holders are financially incentivized to do what’s best for everyone.

    And, if enough people don’t like what the rich are doing, they can always form a collective to counter it. You can already see this with the activism to choose small stake pools, or mission-driven stake pools.

  13. Should a Jhonny come lately with 5 ada have as much pull as someone who’s invested from the start?

    Maybe time of investment is more important then anything.

  14. All that peer reviewd stuff is on their library page at iohk.

    I mean for someone who seems to be critical of the work that is going on… Not very good at finding info that is already out there.

  15. Yes, those how disagree can immigrate to Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and enjoy the full wealth equality.

    Or to Republic of Cuba.

  16. That’s true but also known. More interesting would be a solution to this problem. Any idea there how to resolve that in a “fair” matter?

  17. The solution to make voting “fair” isn’t so simple. 1 ADA = 1 vote favours large holders obviously, but other alternatives pose their own sets of problems. What if you gave 1 vote to every wallet that contains some arbitrary minimum balance of ADA? Nothing would stop a large holder from creating hundreds or thousands of addresses to inflate their own voting power. You can use some formulaic voting systems where there are diminishing returns in votes for increasingly large balances but again there are ways to game that system too.

    Personally I’m not exactly sure that 1 token = 1 vote is entirely a bad system. Those with the largest bags stand to gain and lose the most by changes in the system, and if we can assume these large holders are rational market participants they will always act in their own best interest, which should in theory benefit all holders of ADA? I’m sure someone here could give me a fringe case where some hypothetical governance would benefit large holders and screw the little guy but IMO I don’t see it as a major issue. Maybe increases to txn fees which would by percentage impact smaller holders more than larger holders, but long term something like that benefits everybody big and small since one day long down the road the entire Cardano PoS system will run solely on txn fees once reserve is gone.

  18. Let’s compare two investors:

    Investor 1 buys $2,000 USD worth of ADA in 2017 at $0.02 (100,000 ADA).

    Investor 2 buys $200,000 USD worth of ADA in 2021 at $2.00 (100,000 ADA).

    They now both have the same voting power. If by your definition of rich and fairness, is it fair to investor 1 for he/she to have the same voting power as investor 2? Is it fair for investor 2 to have the same voting power as investor 1?

    You see how stupid “fairness” is in such a discussion?

    Let’s call it what it really is: envy.

  19. There is no such thing as a perfect voting system. Any that you come up with will also have problems, so you just do what you can do and try to get as close as you can. Making voting easier would help quite a bit.

  20. 1 ADA = 1 vote is sensible if you consider the alternatives. 1 wallet = 1 vote means bots take over (and because of transaction fees/minimum holdings, favors the wealthy even *more*). 1 DID = 1 vote *could* work, but you’re trusting issuers of DIDs not to generate fake people for the sake of voting power, therefore introducing trust of centralized institutions into Cardano.

    For now at least, those with more ADA have more to lose and therefore have more say. Hopefully, decent competitors (ETH 2.0 perhaps) will provide the accountability needed for them to vote for the wellbeing of the average holder. There were also talks about delegating voting power to experts in the future, which might provide a way for average people who want more influence to get it.

  21. It makes perfect sense in my view. Decisions made by a whale better be focused on the overall well-being of the network, otherwise people will simply not want the token. The problem would be if people were forced to use a financial system that’s controlled by whales. But in this case, if a whale makes a poor decision, people will go elsewhere and result in massive losses for the whale.

  22. With the way staking works, isn’t Cardano one of the most decentralized blockchains in existence? I feel like I remember hearing that last summer.

  23. I like the idea with those who have the most at stake get a higher share of votes. I also like the idea i just recently saw (may be old news, but its the first time i saw it) with a game called Illuvium which has voting coming up. Basically, you get the square root of what you hold as voting power. So, yes those with more tokens get more votes but it is diminishing returns.

  24. Simply expressed: the more ADA you have, the more risk you take, the heavier the weight of your vote.

    It’s more like in the old democratic systems known before every idiot and freeloader could vote even when they paid no taxes and took no responsibility like nowadays. Something similar to the three class voting systems in the past.

    Democratic societies will fail as we see it today. Evenly distributed votes prefer the lazy and dumb to people which take responsibility.

    The dumb are and will always be the majority. Bad for the dumb, good the smart. As it is since 3000 years. Just look the film “Idiocracy”.

    The more ADA you bought = the smarter you were = the heavier you vote.

    That’s fine for me. I can live with that.

  25. Yes, that’s how Proof of Stake works. It’s not different to the current Fiat system.
    If you don’t like it, go for a decentralised project like Bitcoin.

  26. “Should people more invested into a system with more to lose have more of a say in the direction of the ship?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *