Validation Pool: Difference between revisions
m (→Specification) |
m (→Specification) |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== Specification == | == Specification == | ||
=== Overview === | |||
Suppose a DAO with a total of <math display="inline">R_T</math> reputation tokens has <math>n</math> experts <math>e_k</math> for <math>0\leq k\leq n-1</math> where an expert is defined as anyone who owns a REP token. Let <math>R_k</math> denote the number of tokens owned by expert <math>e_k</math>. So <math display="inline">R_T=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}R_k. </math> | |||
An instantiation of the Validation Pool Smart Contract (VPSC) takes as initial input a new post's address in the Forum, a cash fee, and a type of REP tokens to be minted. VPSC returns newly minted REP tokens. In addition each owner of REP tokens specific to the domain of the post may encumber their tokens and vote up or down on the post. VPSC redistributes the new REP and the encumbered REP as described below. | |||
=== Mint new REP === | |||
When VPSC is called, the fee <math>$f</math> is encumbered, and <math>mf</math> new REP tokens are minted of the type specified. The parameter <math>m</math> determines the proportional number of REP minted to the fee, as set by the DAO. | |||
=== Vote === | |||
VPSC then encumbers default <math>c_2=1/2</math> of the newly minted tokens in the poster's name as an upvote, and encumbers <math>1-c_2=1/2</math> of the newly minted tokens as a downvote, left unassigned to any owner until the completion of the smart contract. | |||
VPSC then allows each member <math>m_k</math> to encumber any of their REP tokens (of the proper type) with an input <math>v_k</math> of upvote (<math>v_k=+1</math>) or downvote (<math>v_k=-1</math>) or default abstention (<math>v_k=0</math>). Once the voting period is finished, VPSC counts the votes by calculating the vote total <math display="inline">V_T:=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}v_k R_k. </math> If <math>V_T\geq 0</math> that means the total REP used to upvote <math display="inline">R_U:=\sum_{ \{ i|v_i>0\}}R_{i} </math> outweighs the total REP used to downvote <math display="inline">R_U\geq R_D:=\sum_{ \{ i|v_i< 0\}}R_{i} </math>. This means <math display="inline">V_T=R_U-R_D. </math> Therefore if <math display="inline">V_T\geq 0</math> the post is validated. If <math>V_T< 0</math> then the downvote wins and the post is invalidated. (The fact that <math display="inline">V_T=0</math> results in validation reflects the almost arbitrary decision that ties will always favor the upvotes.) | |||
=== Binding vs. non-binding === | === Binding vs. non-binding === | ||
Line 21: | Line 27: | ||
Binding Non-binding Rigid Non-contentious post & tightly-coupled (E.g., work-evidence post, mandatory plebiscite) Non-contentious post & loosely-coupled (E.g., poll of consensus on established precedent) Flexible Contentious post & tightly-coupled (E.g., forcing consensus on protocol development) Contentious post & loosely-coupled (E.g., protocol development poll, advisory referendum) | Binding Non-binding Rigid Non-contentious post & tightly-coupled (E.g., work-evidence post, mandatory plebiscite) Non-contentious post & loosely-coupled (E.g., poll of consensus on established precedent) Flexible Contentious post & tightly-coupled (E.g., forcing consensus on protocol development) Contentious post & loosely-coupled (E.g., protocol development poll, advisory referendum) | ||
One post can be reposted with different fees for different types of REP. |
Revision as of 10:48, 8 March 2023
The Validation Pool is the mechanism for holding REP-weighted votes on every assertion made in the DAO. It's function is roughly similar to a betting pool, in that members may register their votes with REP tokens, then, in a binding vote, those voting for the losing side have their tokens redistributed to the winners proportionally.
Specification
Overview
Suppose a DAO with a total of reputation tokens has experts for where an expert is defined as anyone who owns a REP token. Let denote the number of tokens owned by expert . So
An instantiation of the Validation Pool Smart Contract (VPSC) takes as initial input a new post's address in the Forum, a cash fee, and a type of REP tokens to be minted. VPSC returns newly minted REP tokens. In addition each owner of REP tokens specific to the domain of the post may encumber their tokens and vote up or down on the post. VPSC redistributes the new REP and the encumbered REP as described below.
Mint new REP
When VPSC is called, the fee is encumbered, and new REP tokens are minted of the type specified. The parameter determines the proportional number of REP minted to the fee, as set by the DAO.
Vote
VPSC then encumbers default of the newly minted tokens in the poster's name as an upvote, and encumbers of the newly minted tokens as a downvote, left unassigned to any owner until the completion of the smart contract.
VPSC then allows each member to encumber any of their REP tokens (of the proper type) with an input of upvote () or downvote () or default abstention (). Once the voting period is finished, VPSC counts the votes by calculating the vote total If that means the total REP used to upvote outweighs the total REP used to downvote . This means Therefore if the post is validated. If then the downvote wins and the post is invalidated. (The fact that results in validation reflects the almost arbitrary decision that ties will always favor the upvotes.)
Binding vs. non-binding
A VPSC can be binding or non-binding. If an instantiation of the VPSC is binding, that means the REP tokens of all those who voted against winning side lose the tokens they encumbered to those who won, proportionally. E.g., if the post is validated, then all the REP used to downvote is redistributed to those who upvoted, meaning each voter with receives new tokens.
Finally, a VPSC can be -binding for any . A -binding VPSC redistributes the fraction of the losers' tokens to the winners.
Consequences
The Validation Pool can be set to binding or non-binding votes to serve the function of executive or legislative governance. A binding vote means the REP tokens are tightly-coupled with the voters' assertions about the post--if their assertion fails, the voter loses their tokens. For stability, this should only happen when the voter is violating the previously determined will of the DAO.
????
Binding Non-binding Rigid Non-contentious post & tightly-coupled (E.g., work-evidence post, mandatory plebiscite) Non-contentious post & loosely-coupled (E.g., poll of consensus on established precedent) Flexible Contentious post & tightly-coupled (E.g., forcing consensus on protocol development) Contentious post & loosely-coupled (E.g., protocol development poll, advisory referendum)
One post can be reposted with different fees for different types of REP.