Voting Concept: 2-Factor Majority

[worza]

@Pandamunk

How about quadratic voting?

One downside of creating these custom models is complexity for the layman to understand.

The other challenge is actually testing these models and gathering evidence to make decisions. I think software can help.

So quadratic voting is basically tapers off the voting power of larger stakers and incentivizes wallet splitting to retain more voting power. This 2FM system has a similar flaw with encouraging wallet splitting to try boost the voter consensus count, but it is incredibly limited in impact due to this small part;

@worza

we can consider a minimum JUP amount required to count as 1 vote. This can be calculated by the lowest denominator of the top 90% to 95% percentile of holders. In this way, we invalidate micro balances from being counted as a vote, while maintaining the weighted allocation of these micro-accounts within the overall JUP vote totals.

So what this does is add an increasing cost to try an sybil attack the system as it is based on a minimum percentil or ‘holders rank’. Basically it sets a minimum JUP balance required for the system to consider your vote as “1” voter".

Do agree with your suggestion on running this through sims and software to refine it more - specifically the sybil resistance part.

@antimatter

definitely need to keep discussing the details to flesh it out.

So here is updated concept that is more simplified and concise.

System Overview

• Set Minimum % Threshold of Total Participating Wallets as a ‘Pass’ check for voting results.
  E.g.
  Pass Threshold: 30%
  Participants: 1,000,000

Project A: Received 90m JUP and 356,230 Votes (35.6% - Pass)
Project B: Received 90M JUP and 23,554 Votes (2.3% - Fail)

Qualification/Criteria for “1 Vote”

• Staked JUP amount within the top 95% of all wallets. This makes sybil attacks exponentially costly to attempt, whilst also heavily restricting the potential impact.
  E.g.
  Lowest 95th Percentile Wallet: 35 JUP

Wallet 1: Votes with 30 JUP for Project A (Only JUP amount is counted)
Wallet 2: Votes with 40 JUP for Project A (Qualifies as ‘1 vote’ & JUP amount)

Result: Project A will have 70 JUP, with a tally of 1 Voter.

Multiple Choice

• Allow partial use of voting power to be allocated to multiple selections. Doing this will also split your participation vote.
  E.g.

Wallet 1 has 300 JUP and votes for:
P1: 0.35 which is (105 JUP)
P2: 0.50 which is (150 JUP)
P3: 0.10 which is (30 JUP)
P4: 0.05 which is (15 JUP)

Wallet 2 has 3000 JUP and votes for:
P1: 0.4 which is (1200 JUP)
P2: 0.1 which is (300 JUP)
P3: 0.5 which is (1500 JUP)
P4: 0

Wallet 3 has 5 JUP and votes for:
P1: 5 JUP
P2: 0
P3: 0
P4: 0
(example of consensus stuffing, since the JUP balance falls within the lowest 5% of holders, only the JUP amount is counted with no voter count.

Combined Result

P1: 1310 JUP w/ 0.95 Votes
P2: 450 JUP w/ 0.6 Votes
P3: 1530 JUP w/ 0.6 Votes
P4: 15 JUP w/ 0.05 Votes

Hopefully this is a bit more clear and fleshed out.