Idea to decentralize and improve democracy on blockchain basis to replace traditional goverments and more

The goal is to decentralize and improve democracy through dynamic delegation, transparency and digital spaces with full control in the hands of all people at any time. The frontend can be a forum like reddit where everything is in control of participants, like algorithms and layout, the backend could be an ethereum dao.

Everything revolves around proposals. Proposals can be created by everyone and will cost some amount of gas. After that the proposal is distributed randomly to participants with the right to vote. The amount of participants involved will be set dynamically dependent on the opinion of initial participants and/or some algorithms. Everything can develop from there, participants can invest gas or risk voting power to add contracts, messages and so on. Every consequence can lead to reward or punishment automatically by the resulting opinion of other participants in any time.

How is the power distributed?

To prevent abuse someone needs to pay some amount of eth to gain an initial trust/voting power. The eth will go into a vault and is managed by the community. After that the person will be able to vote on things, this will affect his voting power. The calculation of the voting power depends on votes other people do on your actions, every action has numerous links like who else has voted and what have they voted for and especially what are the consequences of the vote in the long run? Everything should be presented in a beautiful interface accessible through the forum.

vote -> action -> consequences -> votes on consequences will affect the origin of the consequences

How to prevent abuse?

1. Polls are distributed randomly based on the importance and/or privilege scope of the resulting action.

2. Increase the buy in according to the value of the initial voting power.

3. Participants should get paid regularly according to their voting power.

4. Regular voting is mandatory but vote spamming needs to be prevented.

5. Polls will be shown to random participants with the same amount of voting power who have to vote on the specific poll too.

6. After a poll is done it will be closed and shown to random participants who need to vote on the result. Depending on the amound of discrepancy the responsible voters can be limited for some time.

7. From time to time there will be random polls with random people about consequences of previous polls. Depending on the result the voting power of the originators will change.

8. In some cases participants can get a time ban to prevent coordinated attacks (exit scams).

9. Algorithm to determine the importance of something and polls with different privilge class. Polls that lead to high privilige actions like changing an algorithm need to be shown a lot of random participants.

10. Moderators, very trustworthy people like Vitalik might get special privilege

11. Veto possibility with a higher risk/reward. Participants can invest any amount of voting power to open a case. For example if they're suspicious or just doing a good job by anticipating the most likely outcome if only enough random people would vote. They can extend the poll phase by investing their voting power with the chance that joining random voters change the outcome. In that case they will be rewarded.

Participants can delegate their voting power to other people they trust and depending on their actions they might loose or gain voting power.

What happens if >50% of voting power in the system stick together against the other? The only real counter for that is if you can prevent power accumulation towards a small amount of individuals and give everybody no matter the voting power some kind of backup voting possibility in special cases. For that you need to be able to give every real human participant the right to give exactly one special vote with the same power for everyone, which will be relevant if (50%?) of all participants in the whole system vote for a specific goal with their special vote otherwise it has no effect. That's only possible (and probably relevant) if the system is used to replace a goverment for example. In most other cases especially in the digital space there is hardly a big enough incentive to destroy a system where you profit from your voting power privilege and the reputation. But to prevent individuals from gaining too much voting power there can be a cap for voting power. The good thing is that there is no profit from intentionally decreasing the voting power before the cap is hit by abusing votes (selling) because everything will get noticed by other participants and the result should be a damage from which the participant can't recover. The price to manipulate important polls will be high because the number of voters will be dynamically set by the opinion of randomly added participants and of course the importance of the poll result based on the scope of the resulting action. And if it happens that some poor individuals get attacked by a wealthy individual the victim can still get compensated with the assets from the attacker if the community is voting for it.