Voting power distribution analysis and thoughts on alternative approach

Hi all,

I’ve been wanting to post an analysis on the Voting power distribution with some thoughts on an alternative approach for a week. But always got an error. So I put my posts in this article:

1 Like

I wouldnt change anything, because only a small portion of holders wote.
If you want to swing a vote in your favor, you need to “sell it” to the holders to vote for your proposal.

And thats it, plain and simple.

If the 70-80% people vote, and whales swing votes in their favor all the time, then there would be need to do something about it. Now is not that time.

1 Like

Hi dado,

Thanks for your comment. (I think not many are interested in this topic, or my first post wasn’t interesting enough :rofl: )

I think the analysis (of the 8/4 snapshot and the snek vote participants) has shown that the voting power distribution is quite independent from how many actual vote.
For the snapshot 8/4 and the snek vote 50% of the voting power is concentrated in the top wallets. (85 wallets of 8423) and (10 of 571 wallets) - that’s 1-2%

I would say that such a voting power distribution is far from ideal/fair. (The outcry of some from the Snek community prompted me to look at the data. Thanks! :pray: )

I agree, every proposal would need to convince the community and I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be like that.

My main point was actually, whether we (as a community) want to (semi) de-couple the number of token a wallet has to the voting power of a wallet - with the goal to aim for a ‘fairer’ (more democratic) voting power distribution.

In my example of the ‘rank-based voting power’, 50% of the voting power was in the top 12.3% wallets (~1000 wallets of 8423) for the 8/4 snapshot and the top 26% (149 wallets of 571) of all wallets that participated in the snek vote.

Note that the idea of a rank-based voting power allocation still respects the number of tokens a wallet has and preserves the hierarchy of the wallets. (Wallets with more tokens will have a higher voting power than wallets with less.) But the ‘shape’ of the voting power distribution is not directly mapped from the number of tokens in the wallet, but set by a few rules that the community could set to achieve a more ‘democratic’ system. (The votes of the masses are more valued than the votes of top holders)

Any new proposals would still need to convince the majority of the community to get passed. But in my opinion a more democratic voting power distribution would reflect the opinion/sentiment of the community better than the current system. (I know currently only a small fraction of the wallets are voting, but as mentioned above, the voting power distribution doesn’t depend on the number of wallets, if you scale it)

While it is partly about preventing whales forming an aristocracy, I wouldn’t see it as the main point. I think the snek vote showed how ‘undemocratic’ the 1token=1vote system is, and I would argue that we could do better than having 50% of the voting power in 1-2% of the wallets. (I know all/most of of crypto is currently like that, but lenfi could decide to innovate? :thinking: )

I would say if whales swing the votes in their favor already, it’s actually too late to act. (better act preventive than reactive :wink: )

I think most of our past votes would have still have the same outcome if calculated with the ranked-based voting power allocation. So it doesn’t make much of a difference.

But the difference is that if we care about a ‘fairer’ voting power distribution or if we’re fine with the 1token=1vote system - which resulted in the 1-2% top majority voting power distribution that we currently have.

I’m not sure if this distribution will naturally get ‘fairer’ or not, but I doubt that. :thinking:
So if we want to “design our own voting power distribution”, it is possible. It’s just up to us to decide if we want to do it.

Thanks for reading. :slight_smile:


1 Like