Citizens and their governance

The initial idea is to have a bicameral system, where citizens make proposals and vote on them, and $veNATION holders ratify them (except if they are outrageous).

In general, I am a fan of bicameral systems since they enforce some checks and balances without involving too much bureaucracy.

After the Genesis Passport launch, the main difference between being a citizen and being a $veNATION holder, purely in technical terms, is whether you hold an NFT or not. That’s great, as it limits the amount of people that can make proposals. Apart from that, this separation doesn’t achieve much more, and it becomes slightly irrelevant when standard passports are launched.

I’d like to open up a discussion about ways to improve the governance model.

1-citizen 1-vote

We are used to 1-citizen 1-vote in traditional systems. But today, the only way to enforce such a thing on the blockchain would be to use something like Proof of Humanity. But even PoH is vulnerable to deep-fake attacks (and these attacks will get easier by the month at this point).

The other way would be to onboard citizens by doing traditional KYC and asking for the passport in their trad country. This is very backwards at many levels and goes against the ethos, since it would make us dependent on trad passports, on the KYC provider (a company in a trad jurisdiction), and it wouldn’t allow anon contributors to participate.

So, unfortunately, unless there are significant advancements in this field, 1-citizen 1-vote seems infeasible.

Citizens can vote, voting power is weighted

This is the default system that we will launch with. Only citizens can vote, and their voting power is measured by their $veNATION stake. Their $veNATION stake is a combination of their financial commitment and their long-term commitment. It is only fair that those who have the most skin-in-the-game have more weight in this system.

However, under this system, there is little distinction between citizens and $veNATION holders, so it might make sense to merge both.

But if we merge those roles, who will provide some checks and balances?

Citizens govern, the Court can veto, a supermajority of $veNATION holders can replace the Court

This model builds up on the previous one, with a couple changes:

  • If a vote is unconstitutional, the Court can stop it from happening, and slash the proposer of such vote
  • If a vote is unconstitutional and the Court misbehaves, the Court’s jury can be replaced by a vote with support equal or above supermajority threshold (66%) of $veNATION holders. The jury would have an agreement with the DAO, and they would be slashed for their misbehavior as well

So far this is my favorite model, since it has the following properties:

  • It allows all citizens to participate, but encourages financial and long-term skin-in-the-game
  • It enforces checks and balances (via the Court and $veNATION holders as last resort) and makes 51% attacks highly infeasible
  • It doesn’t rely on protocols to enforce human uniqueness, which are still in early stages and often exclude anons

I’d love to hear thoughts!


what if supermajority of $veNATION holders misbehave,who can supervision them? that’s my first thought reading the proposal.


Court can open second round vote after holders veto,That may limit the tyranny of the majority

1 Like

Hello Luis, Thank you very much for your post, in general, I think this structure makes sense.

First of all, I am against the one-person-one-vote system. As you said, if the one-person-one-vote system is not assisted by KYC, then it is easy to achieve low sinker evil. And the one-person-one-vote system does not have much positive effect on the token economy.

The weighted voting power is important from the token economy point of view, it can motivate people to lock more Nation in order to get a bigger voice. Stability of $Nation’s value is very important for the development of DAO.

It is true that the courts can prevent superpowers from proposing nefarious behavior, but when the proposal is legal, the superpowers do have the power to determine the final outcome of the proposal. To limit the influence of superpowers, I suggest using quadratic voting.

Let me conclude:

  1. use weighted voting power and use quadratic voting.
  2. you need to have a certain number of $veNation (e.g., more than 2) to submit a proposal
  3. the court can restrict illegal proposals through the jury system(with punishment mechanism)
  4. a 66% majority can limit court misconduct (with punishment mechanism)

The 66% majority decision above is the final trump card and is unrestricted. This is because my understanding is that the 66% represents the interests of the majority, i.e. the DAO. Therefore, it makes sense.


that would be little complecated. I think 66% is the majority, which stands for most people’s benifits.

The court constrains supermajority to do evil, while 66% Majority constrains court to do evil. 66% represents the interests of most people, so I think this mechanism is very reasonable.

1 Like

yeeees ,quadratic voting can reduce irrational behaviors.

In principle, I am more in favor of one citizen one vote
Of course, because the technology of proof of human is still immature, so the current solution as a stopgap measure is possible
Recently I am studying a project related to DID (decentralize identity), and indeed in the early days, I think the problem of anonymous people will be solved in the future with the development of privacy technology.

The weighted approach is a common one in Crypto circles, but I’m always worried about monopolies (imagine what would happen if the owners of Google, FB, Twitter, Tesla had weighted voting power)

maybe we could use passports to achieve one citizen one vote

1 Like

someone can lock nations in different wallets to get many passports.


venation is not the nation token. you must lock nation token for lang time to get venation. who would like to hold venation? only long term investors and contributors. using venation to do governance means that let the true nation3dao believer to decide the future of nation3dao.

therefore I think it is the right way using weighted voting power. as a compensation we could consider the quadratic voting to reduce the effects of monopolies.

1 Like

Supplement each other, the implementation of a bicameral legislature, is the cornerstone of building nation3 trust mechanism, make our future more resilient.

Generally speaking, I think passport holders should have the right to vote
Of course, this may be unfair to those who hold veNATION but do not hold passports, but from a practical point of view, citizens of any country should have a certain threshold, which is simplified as a commitment (reflected here). For the lock nation and then get the passport)
I think weighted voting is appropriate in the early stage, especially in the early stage of DAO development. To be precise, this is a concept of elite governance (the early stage of DAO development requires a team to control the direction. is not good), but in the later stage of development, changes need to be made, because in the process of development, the formation of monopoly is likely to be difficult to avoid (even if it is a second vote)

”Generally speaking, I think passport holders should have the right to vote“

---- I don’t understand what you mean, passport belongs to venation holder and venation is the governance token

and the people who has venation but no passport, also has the right to vote.

right now is the early stage, isn’t it?

1 Like

I have nothing against veNation holders owning voting rights, nor the current weighted voting scheme
I am just expounding my ideal idea. After gradual development, I think it should turn to a model of one citizen, one vote. This is a mental debate. If there is no such idea in advance, from the perspective of path dependence, future changes will be difficult

Luis has made the disadvantages of one person one vote very clear, please read it again. Let’s stay grounded in the scenarios that are currently achievable and not be overly ambitious and talk about things that are unrealistic. When the conditions are ripe we can discuss what can be operated, okay?

Otherwise it is a waste of unnecessary energy and time

1 Like

Does the pledge have dividends?

Thanks for the comments!

The problem with this is Sybil resistance. Quadratic voting only works if we can assure that one account = one person, which we cannot.

Yeah, and all citizens should have locked $veNATION by default.