Editing Talk:DAO Governance Framework


== NOTE ==
Anyone can contribute. To edit this wiki [[Special:CreateAccount|create an account]]. <br>
Click 'Add topic' to separate subjects.<br>
Please sign all comments by typing 4 tildes (~).<br>
:To answer, use colons (:) to indent
::Use two colons (::) to indent twice
:::Etc.<br>
[[User:Craig Calcaterra|Craig Calcaterra]] ([[User talk:Craig Calcaterra|talk]]) 04:26, 27 March 2023 (CDT)
<br>

==Theory that needs consensus==
DGF is using an interesting hybrid/integration of Bayesian and Degroot learning models with interesting social processes/requirements baked into its evolution/learning scheme. --[[User:Kung|Kung]] ([[User talk:Kung|talk]]) 11:38, 4 October 2023 (CDT)

==Former Attempts==
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1635-MHXFgv38Ef3Kv2PRoOmZfR9Pa97cMKKyFfBzGtM/edit#heading=h.kivwvrfahuyi CRDAO: Bid Escrow Architecture] by [https://odra.dev/ Odra]

== Voting Technical Issues ==


The Validation Pool is the heart of the system, so voting with REP is always a major issue. I have always preferred as ideal the notion that each DAO run its own blockchain to keep track of its own REP list. The major problem with voting is scaling. In order to have regular automated votes there is a lot of messaging that is needed if it is to remain decentralized. There is also a major difficulty in keeping the vote hidden until the period is ended. These issues have been explored in the literature and I'm confident there are solutions. But I'm ignorant about the existence of a robust product we can simply adopt. <br>
https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/05/25/voting2.html<br>
 [[User:Craig Calcaterra|Craig Calcaterra]] ([[User talk:Craig Calcaterra|talk]]) 00:02, 2 March 2023 (CST)

<br>
<br>
[https://www.loom.com/share/67c1b8ea00b948a6bb254044bfcf5452 Idea]: Using the forum conception of a node as a sub-forum. I'm using [[Science Publishing DAO|SPD]] as an example.

==Question==

* Agree/Disagree/Qualify (ADQ):--[[User:Kung|Kung]] ([[User talk:Kung|talk]]) 10:06, 4 October 2023 (CDT)

Kung:
The WDAG will consist of 2x main REP classes (WREP, CREP) - RREP and GREP can be thought of as different kinds of WREP types. CREP types aren't as important.
<br>FU: Different REP types have their own validation pools.
<br>FU2: Governance REP should be a required WREP type.

Calcaterra Corrections:
The WDAG will consist of 2x main REP classes (WREP, CREP) - RREP and GREP, and others can be thought of as different kinds of WREP types. CREP types '''don't make money, so they don't have validation pools, and only have shadow REP.'''
<br>FU: Different '''W'''REP types have their own validation pools.
<br>FU2: Governance REP should '''typically''' be a WREP type. '''[I imagine many situations where governance should be a civic duty, and is not remunerated at all. Only monks who don't want to lead are allowed to be leaders in Plato's ideal republic.]'''

* How are work and governance shadow rep generated? --[[User:Kung|Kung]] ([[User talk:Kung|talk]]) 10:06, 4 October 2023 (CDT)

Shadow WREP and GREP have the same situation as shadow CREP. If there are posts intended as W or G instead of C, they could be labeled as such. The clever way to label them, IMO, is to post them under that category, with proper root post in the WDAG. That means that a post that references more than one type of root will have more than one type of shadow REP--the same way that it would call more than one validation pool for each root post connected to the post if it involves money. - Calcaterra