2023-07-21 Voting on the agenda contributes to the creation of "public goods (i.e. goods or services such as parks or highways)" - data that gathers the opinions of all of us. - Since it is contribution, proof of contribution points should be issued.

What can you accomplish with these points?

• Answering this question will further explore the value of voting.

The first scenario

• If you spend points and achieve nothing
  • The balance would be the total amount of past contributions.
  • This helps build trust.

Second scenario

• If you can use points to accomplish something
  • Decreasing balances
  • Does this imply a decrease in trust?
    • In my opinion, it is not.
    • The terms "balance" and "total historical acquisition" will have different meanings.

A related discussion was covered in the FOTEISON discussion in "name-your-enemy party".

• A proposal was made to reset the currency periodically and issue NFTs to the top ranking people to be converted into "achievements".
• This also supports the understanding that "proof of performance" should be generated separately from the balance.

PICSY matches currency balances to people's valuations

• but the result is that "when person A buys in large quantities, other people whom A had valued will be devalued.
• Issues such as budget constraints and the introduction of a central bank to mitigate this need to be addressed.
• But is it really necessary to match balances and valuations?

The act of creating a room (a set of agendas) creates an opportunity to contribute

• This is a good thing.
• On the other hand, in a room full of excitement, someone who wants their opinion to be noticed may make a post in the form of an agenda
  • The act of posting an agenda to a place with N people consumes the attention of one vote of N people, so N units of voting contribution tokens should be consumed!
• It should be subject to public investment until it becomes congested and then it should be subject to taxation once it becomes congested.
  • This is a concrete example of the policy of "taxing congestion and subsidizing public goods."
• Bringing in new voters on social networking sites is a contribution, so maybe we should issue tokens for that as well.
  • I don't know the proper exchange ratio, maybe it should be a different value.

ver.1

2023-07-16 I'll reiterate the language as it has crystallized over time.

Voting for an agenda item is a contribution to the creation of public goods (i.e. goods or services such as parks or highways), "data on everyone's opinions", and therefore contribution certification points should be issued.

I don't know if I can spend these points to do anything.

• If you can't.

  • The balance will be the total amount of past contributions → confidence building.

• when possible

  • Does trust diminish?
    • not match the correct (answer, etc.)
  • In other words, "balance" and "total past acquisitions" will have different meanings.

• [Discussion in 'FOTEISON' started by [name-your-enemy-party

• Proposal to reset the currency-like items periodically and convert them into "achievements" by issuing NFTs to top rankers, etc.

  • This also means that "balance" and "trust" are two different things.

• PICSY has the problem that "when person A makes a large purchase, the others who were valued by A lose their valuation" because they equate currency balances with people's valuation, and to mitigate this problem, they have to introduce budget constraints, central banks, etc. Why should this be the same? Is there...

Making room is a good thing in itself, creating an opportunity to contribute.

• Subject to public investment until congested, subject to taxation once congested
  • tax congestion and subsidize public goods.

generated from ver.1

Voting on the agenda contributes to the creation of a "public good" - data that gathers the opinions of all of us. This leads to the idea that contribution proof points should be issued. We can further explore the value of voting by answering the question: what can we accomplish with these points?

The first scenario is when points are spent and nothing is accomplished. Here, the balance becomes the total amount of past contributions, which builds trust. The second scenario is when points can be used to accomplish something. But does this mean that trust decreases? In my opinion, it does not. Rather, "balance" and "total past acquisitions" will have different meanings.

These discussions were addressed in the FOTEISON discussion at the "Fame Enemy Meeting". A proposal was made to reset the currency periodically and issue NFTs to the top ranking people to be converted into "achievements". This supports the understanding that balances and trust are two separate things.

PICSY aligns currency balances with people's valuations, but this results in the problem of "when person A buys a large amount, the valuations of other people that A had valued go down". To alleviate this problem, budget constraints and a central bank need to be introduced to address the issue. But is it really necessary to match balances and valuations?

The act of creating the room itself creates an opportunity to contribute, which is a good thing. It should be an object of public investment until it becomes congested, and once it is congested, it should be subject to taxation. This is a concrete example of the "tax what is congested and subsidize public goods" policy.

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/投票は貢献であり信頼醸成 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.