Assuming that the overall goal is around increasing the market share of Tezos, here are some thoughts and ideas I had:
-
I am not going into the particulars of execution/funding at this time as that is a whole other matter, are the ideas even good to begin with.
-
In general, each following idea in some way builds on some of the benefits from the previous ideas.
-
I will continue to edit and update this post in an effort to make it more legible.
-
If a particular idea, stands out from the rest and people want to focus on it, then I will create a post specifically for it.
#1 - With genuine curiosity and intellectual humility, approach and ask the broader more general crypto community what their impression of Tezos is and what they think Tezos should do to increase itâs market share.
-
We can speculate all day long about what is, would, could, should, whatever⊠or we can just ask people.
-
This is something that is open to anyone at any scale in the community is able to participate in.
-
This will actually act as a form of marketing by getting people talking and thinking about Tezos.
-
I experimented with this yesterday and asked the other hosts of the weekly r/cc podcast to give me feedback on Tezos
- I will share their anonymized feedback in an Agora post.
-
#2 - Community Moderation and Organization via DAOâs:
-
Not everyone is a good actor, even generally good actors are not always so and it is healthy for them to get correction and feedback when they are not.
-
One approach is total access where only illegal content and obvious spam are removed.
- This creates an asymmetry where bad actors can waste the time and attention of others. Often they can be blocked but the channels still easily get filled with lower and lower quality engagement.
- When those bad actors are finally removed, general engagement drops when people disagree with those decisions.
-
So, who should handle moderation?
-
In short, with the principles of crypto and Tezos, the stake holders.
-
Groups ( of varying size and buy in ) should set up DAOâs where their method and execution is decided by the stake holders.
- Where groups agree they can coordinate, where they disagree they can peacefully compete, in the end the ecosystem as a whole benefits.
- If a subgroup feels hard done by or that they can do better, they can sell their stake and start their own DAO.
-
-
Recommended General DAO organization:
-
Let it be noted that DAOs will have the incentive to find the mean between too much and too little moderation and ultimately, the ecosystem ( voluntary market ) as a whole, will decide.
-
First of all, perfection is an impossible standard and reaching it means failure somewhere else that will undermine whatever it is you are trying to perfectly optimize for.
- Donât aim for no bad actors ever, aim for better than now and a reliable means of improvement over time so your day to day efforts are not wasted or lost to the past.
-
Let moderation action and baning be handled by a vote.
-
For faster response time, you can even have moderators that post a bond which is forfiet ( based on a vote ) if they act outside of their mandate.
- This would be handy for deleting/banning obvious scam/spam/troll content.
-
-
Let participation in a hosted chat channel or forum come with a small cost that goes to the DAO treasury and is kept even if they are banned.
-
Each DAO can experiment with the parameters they want to see what works out best for them.
- Maybe you want to have as few bad actors as possible, ever. Set a high sign up cost, maybe you want to judo move trolls into paying your operating costs, set a lower sign up cost.
-
Let each message come with a small bond that is forfiet at the discretion of the DAO.
- Again, you can let trolls pay your operating costs or prevent them from showing up in the first place.
-
-
-
#3 - A Reputation Network ( or networks ):
-
Reputation networks are a form of expression where people give each other and the market/ecosystem feedback on their interactions.
- Reputation networks become force multipliers for the efforts done in the community.
- Every interaction and exchange becomes a greater opportunity, for good actors to get recognized and for bad actors to get the feedback they need to improve. Or, if they choose not to reform⊠eventually the market will stop wasting resources and attention interacting with them.
-
This is easily implemented in many ways with tech we already have. Again, imo competition is best here and let the standard be chosen by market dominance.
-
NOTE In the implementation, the method of interpreting the data from the reputation network should be competing market services and not something baked into the implementation. The whole point is for individual to be thingking, acting and judging for themselves.
-
A Reputation Network ( or networks ) will, overtime, reduce the ecosystem overhead for moderation:
-
Some DAOs will set requirements for minimum reputation in order to participate in varying degrees and ways.
-
âWhat does that matter? How expensive is that really?â
-
Governance is, I would argue, the single greatest expense in all of society. This is our greatest place to save on costs and generate greater profits imo.
-
Some will say that people will abuse a system like this.
-
See Ludwig Von Mises:
- âIf one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.â
- My take on that: If you think you are hopelessly surrounded by people who are more vicious, malicious, incompetent and or neglegent than not, then we will never know because any of your interaction here at all is a performative contradiction.
-
It is not abusable so long as action on and interpretation of the data is left to the individual so gain or lose from.
- If one spreads lies in order to harm the reputation of someone, they themselves are open to have their reputation destroyed when it gets brought to light.
-
-
What about privacy and anonymity?
- This complements them, it does not hinder them.
- Anonymous alternative identities can gain or lose reputation like anyone else.
- This actually makes it easier to assess the trustworthiness or not of anonymous identities.
-
What about forgiveness and the opportunity for reform?
- Absolutely! Anyone can work to reform their reputation.
- If all else fails, they can start over from scratch with an anonymous identity and still participate in the market from there.
-
-
-
#4 Anonymous chats / forums:
-
This idea leverages the previous ideas so they would need to be implemented first.
-
Anonymous platforms would be places where anonymity were enforced.
- Basic DAO moderation as described above.
- Making bannable the sharing of oneâs own identity, whether it is mistakenly leaked or not subject to the judgement of the DAO.
-
People would more have to focus on the merits of ones arguments, their reason and evidence as opposed to personal history/biases.
-
Note, this does not mean whatever is shared there has any kind of value, it would all have to be judged on an individual basis according to itâs own merit:
-
Could be complete lies or especially with anonymous accounts, one or a few people pretending to be a larger group.
- For this reason I would recommend a DAO regulaitng these platforms make it cost something for each message. Goes stright to the treasury. If one is going to appear to be many, make them pay for it.
-
-
This would have to be carefully executed to minimize abuse. IMO itâs pointless and the overhead is too great without reputation networks.
#5 - Defi reform:
-
Defi reform would mean reflecting on the scams and calamities in crypto over the years and reflecting on how we can avoided them in the future.
-
First off, lets note that whatever criticism one can throw at crypto, fiatland is far, far worse. Fiat is a greater scam than any other and all manner of bad actions are used to propagate it. It is orders of magnitude more destructive to both the economy and ecology, regardless of which one you personally prioritize.
- That said, the marketplace of voluntary people newly freed from the chains of fiat finance understandably are in a collective state of learning and making mistakes.
- The viscous, malicious, incompetent and negligent are lined up to take advantage of this.
-
Lets create a culture of due diligence and demanding defi projects be (voluntarily [ not relying on state courts ] ) regrettable by their participants.
-
Step 1 of Due Diligence is looking to the reputation and history of the people in a project.
-
Search online their names, former business etcâŠ
-
Have they ever been responsible for X amount of resources?
-
Regardless of which ever you think is more psychologically influential and potentially corrupting, addicting and dangerous like a drug, wealth ( owning things ) or state power ( effectively owning other people ), we can all agree that wealth has a great psychological impact.
- Most people that win the lottery are worse of and more miserable in the long run.
- Does the founder ( or executive group ) of a defi project, have a history of being responsible for that much wealth and successfully delivering on obligations of that scale?
-
-
Did they themselves fall victim to past manias and scam/incompetent projects? ( Luna, FTX, Celsius etc⊠)
- One may be tempted to let them off the hook becuase they themselves fall victim, but people asking to lead projects are implying they can do better with your money, for you, than you can. Hold them more accountable.
-
-
-
Create Defi DAO templates where the participants get to vote on when, how and how much funds are released on what basis.
- This is just a basic commons sense improvement to me. Do i really need to explain why? Let me know though, I will.
#6 - Voting Markets:
-
This idea is less dependent on the previous idea but the most speculative imo, so i put it at the end.
-
During each governance cycle, after a particular proposal is selected, vote tokens are generated in ones address equivalent to the quantity of Tezos ( or token in the case of a DAO ) one holds. These votes can then be sold on the open market.
-
This voting method is ( to my understanding ) the idea of Mike Evron, credit to him, you can hear more about it in his #BlockchainEvolved episode:
-
-
This would drastically reduce voter apathy and encourage far more interest and engagement in governance.
But I donât see other ecosystems like DOT, BNB, ADA, NEAR, AVAX, etc really finding any more real adoption than XTZ, despite their fairly widely varying mcaps.
It hasnt been this oversold since Nov 18â
