Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ManuAlzurušŸ„‘ pfp
ManuAlzurušŸ„‘
@manu
Many crypto people are lately hyping Futarchy, but they aren't telling you it can be manipulated by the wealthy, is speculative, and oversimplifies complex issues using the market. Why don't they mention the ethical dilemmas? 1/2
3 replies
0 recast
6 reactions
Trigs pfp
Trigs
@trigs
I don't get it. Futarchy is just a name a guy put on an idea a long time ago. Actual futarchy doesn't even exist and is just a theoretical example of a different way to form consensus and examine outcomes? It's like saying DAOs don't work. Well, nobody's actually built one yet. We're just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks. A system built off the ideas of futarchy doesn't have to be a plutocracy or even have anything to do with money. Sounds like you just don't like polymarket (which has nothing to do with futarchy) šŸ˜
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
ManuAlzurušŸ„‘ pfp
ManuAlzurušŸ„‘
@manu
And regarding what you said about futarchy having nothing to do with plutocracy or outcomes based on money then I donā€™t know what are you referring to since the main definition is to vote with your money. ChatGTP says: Futarchy is a form of governance proposed by economist Robin Hanson, where policy decisions are made based on prediction markets rather than traditional democratic voting processes. The idea is to combine elements of democracy and market mechanisms to create a more efficient and effective decision-making process. In a futarchy, the general public would vote on broad goals or values (e.g., economic growth, environmental sustainability, public health). Once these goals are established, prediction markets would be used to determine which policies are most likely to achieve these goals. Participants in the prediction markets would buy and sell shares based on their expectations of the outcomes of different policies, and the policies predicted to perform best would be implemented.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Trigs pfp
Trigs
@trigs
I said it doesn't HAVE to be about money. Hanson's original idea used that as an example, but he was just promoting a theory. He didn't build one. There's no "futarchy protocol" everyone is building off of. This is an emergent idea! It's an idea that separates voting on values from elections and execution. Prediction markets don't have to be monetary, that is just the easiest starting point. DAOs were all plutocratic with 1T1V designs at first too, but we're experimenting with all kinds of different options now. When we get better reputation-centric onchain weight criteria there will be more options than just plutocracy.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ManuAlzurušŸ„‘ pfp
ManuAlzurušŸ„‘
@manu
Well actually I met the guy in person and he was very explicit about using markets with money to govern DAOs. He didnā€™t built one but the builders are building based on those ideas. The guy was being put in a pedestal and is advising multiple projects that are trying to create prediction markets for DAOs using money. So yeah to me this is super plutocratic. And yeah I agree that things doesnā€™t HAVE to be built using money for voting.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Trigs pfp
Trigs
@trigs
Now that I understand what you're subcasting I'm less confused. This is why I don't follow too closely what the pop-trends are doing. It's usually just frustrating. There are people building some pretty interesting new governance models utilizing concepts taken from futarchy without just blindly charging into it. Myself included. I'm on the slowcore train, however, so I'll likely skip the trendy projects shipping more plutocracy and focus on the long-term goal of better governance models.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ManuAlzurušŸ„‘ pfp
ManuAlzurušŸ„‘
@manu
Sorry if my cast confused you. What I have been calling out since the beginning is the fact that we want to create predictions markets for governance using money and this to me is very plutocratic and elitist. The decisions that come from those systems will be the best decisions for those with money and not the best decisions for the whole community.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Trigs pfp
Trigs
@trigs
Absolutely! I think everyone just starts with the money angle because it's accessible. We've only tokenized money so far, really, so it's the onchain currency of choice. I applaud you for fighting that fight! We have to keep pushing back against plutocracy if we want this industry to actually accomplish something. And thank you for taking the time to explain the context of your point more clearly! My battle is on the reputation front. I truly believe we need to tokenize reputation so we have onchain value that isn't just money to use for governance. We fight together, friend!
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ManuAlzurušŸ„‘ pfp
ManuAlzurušŸ„‘
@manu
Tokenized reputation is also a very delicate topic. Who tokenizes it? What are the parameters and values that determine reputation? Will there be a global reputation score? Will the reputation be based on context?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Trigs pfp
Trigs
@trigs
Yup those are great questions! My emphasis, one I think gets missed in the discussion, is that the *issuer* of reputation is more important than who holds it. Think of IRL credentials. You trust your doctor because a reputable institution verified their knowledge & skill. You trust your new hire because previous employers verified their work history. Onchain reputation will be no different. Verifying the issuer of the reputation will be more critical than simply holding a token that says something about you. It's no simple problem to solve.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction