I'm particularly inspired by Greg Maxwell's note that a 51% consensus leaves the remaining 49% disenfranchised.
I was thinking about a voting portal which could reside on a website.
www.aeonocracy.org? Rather than a conventional voting system which could potentially lead to a disenfranchised userbase, an alternate system could be conceived whereby each votable component is given a score from 1 to 10. The component with the highest total score wins the vote, and thereby minimises vote disenfranchisement.
That doesn't solve voter distribution problems or nefarious voters, but it's a better system than the conventional polling systems so could at least function as a useful module within a future system.
I listened. I think even that panel shows the inefficiencies in how we govern ourselves. Everyone on the stage is considered very smart, and so is presumed to have an "equal say" but some are better leaders than others (like Andreas and so are able to socially swing the consensus their way). It is unfortunate that some of our brightest are not necessarily our best orators. I have been thinking about what would be involved in "ideal governance" and though I don't have an answer, I seem to have a few pieces of the puzzle figured out. Please note that these ideas are pretty generic, and may not necessarily relate to Aeon directly.
- We must accept that not all voices will be equal in ideal governance, nor should they be. Since we accept that everyone will not have an equal voice, our thoughts can turn towards what mechanisms can be used to distinguish the weight of various voices.
- A reputation/influence system seems best suited for this where all nodes might begin with equal influence but quickly diverge based on a meritocracy. Eventually Node J carries "74" reputation because his/her ideas are always so favored and it is apparent that they have the communities best interests at heart while Node M makes a constant ass of themselves and has the minimum reputation of "10". Perhaps users don't just vote on issues; they also vote on which other users should be given increased reputation.
- However, all users/voices must have the opportunity to both propose new ideas and spend what reputation/influence they have to vote on current issues. All voices will always have some sort of say in matters, even the most casual, disliked, and new.
- A competent dictator is better than a bloated and ineffective democracy, but a mediocre democracy is better than any corrupt and foolish dictator. This alone shows that all voices should not have equal weight in ideal governance. Ideal governance should have mechanisms built in to flow naturally from a small circle of power to a wide democracy and then back again to the small circle of power if times call for it. Having a small group wielding the majority of power isn't a bad thing as long as there are inescapable mechanisms to ensure that if the systems/populations they are governing are dissatisfied they can withdraw that power.
- It seems impossible that there can be a reputation/influence system built with anonymity built in. It would be trivial in every construct I can imagine to game the system with fake personalities and votes. Therefore, unless there is something I am missing, any system of influence or governance must have reputation systems attached to verifiable identities. As autonomous artificial intelligence becomes a reality, this will introduce additional problems since there is very little creation cost in an AI creating another instance of itself whereas humans need decades to create another productive member of the species.
- All members of the 'voting class' absolutely should start at the bottom of the ladder and be forced to prove themselves, regardless of lineage or inheritance.
- The reputation would form a sort of currency of its own in time. Ideal governance would have checks so that reputation and votes cannot be bought on the protocol level. This is a very difficult problem, but perhaps can be solved by removing one of the important qualities of money from the voting/reputation mechanisms (such as scarcity).
As far as the more immediate issue of a currency symbol, perhaps a weighted vote could work. At this stage we are so small that perhaps consensus can still be achieved by seeing
who can talk the loudest. I have always preferred æ, even if it gets casual-ized to a simple "ae". I prefer aeon to be the serious Cryptonote that might have a quiet voice but carries a slick brand and powerful tech. By making the symbol Æ it seems that we are simply trying too hard to go for a "techno-future" slant. Remember, many successful post-2000 brands (and make no mistake, we have not just a technological war ahead of us to unseat
litecoin but also a branding war) became successful not because they looked futuristic and intimidating but because they hid powerful technology underneath a soft and approachable exterior.
iPod is the best music player on the market - but looks like a fun and personal device that's all about
you.
Google is a funny and cute word - driven by the most powerful search engine in the world and best e-mail of the time.
Facebook is an inviting place all your friends are on, and
of course you would use them - they carry themselves with a cute & friendly arrogance that demonstrates they are the best.
Æ seems to me to be a bit "try hard". We don't need to try hard. We have the best technology, and the truth of that will make itself evident in time. What we
need is to be approachable and friendly.
In this respect, it might even be a good thing that æ gets shortened down to "ae". Let people feel like they are somehow masters of this technology, even when they aren't. Feed *their* ego, not the other way around.
Remember it's not about Aeon proving that it's the best with flashy futuristic bragging - it's about being low key the best while having the most capacity to spread from person to person (like a meme). In this respect, the symbol æ is far more fluid as a concept likely to spread vs. something more formal. "Srs bsns" will come in time, or be forced to. Even the military has started issuing iPads in recent years to aircrew members, despite it being a fun and friendly consumer toy just a few years ago.
It comes down to the laws of power: Æ is the equivalent of Kanye West; it is screaming at the world how it is the best. Meanwhile æ is Channing Tatum; it knows it's great and it's purpose is now to make
you feel great.
Ultimately I
far prefer the æ but I'll survive with the other symbol; I just won't be as happy about it but I'm sure I'll get used to it in time. I don't even think "Monero" is so weird of a name anymore.
