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.
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.
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?
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!