Welcome to Polkadot OpenGov Education Series

The Polkadot OpenGov Education Series offers accessible explanations of key governance concepts to empower the Polkadot community to actively participate in on-chain governance.

A lively debate recently unfolded on the best path forward for Polkadot governance. In this piece, we dive into discussions around implementing quadratic voting to counter plutocracy concerns and the critical role sybil-resistance plays in enabling new systems.

Introduction

Governance is a complex challenge for any decentralized community. Fundamental questions around stakeholder representation, legitimacy, and power structures continue to stir healthy debate as we collectively explore how to govern blockchain networks.

Recently, an enlightening discussion unfolded on the Polkadot forum examining if the current OpenGov system leads to fair outcomes or plutocratic rule. The conversation has unpacked issues of democracy, identity, context-specific voting models, and the critical need for sybil-resistance.

This article will dive deeper into the perspectives raised and analyze the merits of OpenGov's token weighted voting compared to alternative approaches like quadratic voting. We'll look at arguments on both sides, prerequisites for implementing new systems, and criteria for selecting optimal governance models tailored to specific communities and use cases.

Plutocracy vs. Democracy?

A core issue raised in the Polkadot governance discussion is whether the current OpenGov system leads to plutocratic outcomes.

In OpenGov, votes on referenda are weighted based on the amount of DOT held by each voter. Critics argue this concentrates power and influence into the hands of a few large DOT whales who can sway governance outcomes.

User @brenzi started the debate by asserting OpenGov results in “rule by the wealthy few.” They contend that the collective decisions end up skewed toward benefiting major token holders rather than the overall health of the network.

However, defenders of stake-weighted voting counter that it serves to align decision-making with those who have “skin in the game” and are invested in the growth of the network. They believe tying votes to the stake held reasonably incentivizes voters to make choices that improve the protocol and in turn their investment.

Concerns have also been raised about how to ensure legitimacy and adequately represent the interests of various network stakeholders in an identity-less blockchain system. With no clear way to establish identity and personhood, arguments have been made for both stake-based and one-person-one-vote models.

Alternatives to consider

Given the concerns raised about plutocracy, a major part of the governance debate has centered around alternative voting systems that could rebalance power dynamics.

One option frequently proposed is quadratic voting. In quadratic voting, votes are weighted by the square root of the tokens staked, rather than in direct proportion. This aims to counter the impact of large token holders by making each additional vote more "expensive."

Proponents argue quadratic voting offers a blending of plutocracy and democracy. Token holdings still influence outcomes but not to the degree they do in the standard stake-weighted model. It reduces but doesn't eliminate the power of wealth.

Other voting approaches have also been suggested and analyzed like "one person, one vote" models based on establishing identity. However, blockchain's anonymity makes traditional identity-based voting extremely challenging.

Differential voting rights are another option to consider, where certain classes of stakeholders get disproportionate influence like founders or early backers. But this could skew too much control to a minority group.

There are merits and drawbacks to each alternative governance model discussed. But it's clear there are possibilities beyond the status quo that could rebalance stakeholder power dynamics.

Sybil-resistance is Key

A critical prerequisite for implementing any alternative governance systems is sybil-resistance - the ability to prevent duplicate or fake identities.

Without sybil-resistance, new voting mechanisms like quadratic voting remain vulnerable to attack vectors. Malicious actors could circumvent the square root vote weighting by simply creating multiple accounts ("sybils") to increase influence.

As Brenzi, the author of the post on polkadot forum discussed, even carefully balanced voting systems like quadratic voting only function properly within the context of a sybil-resistant environment.

Establishing robust sybil-resistance on blockchain networks is extremely challenging due to the pseudonymous nature and low barriers to creating accounts. However, various approaches do show promise.

Social graph schemes leverage connections between accounts to infer uniqueness and personhood. Pseudonym parties issue credentials based on real-world interactions between users. Optimistic identity architectures allow self-attestation backed by staked tokens.

The practicality, inclusiveness, and cryptographic strength of these solutions remains debated. But some form of sybil-resistance appears foundational to progressing governance beyond plutocracy.

Context Matters

Another key governance perspective raised is that different contexts may require different voting systems.

As @shawntabrizi discussed, while token-weighted voting makes sense for protocol changes and treasury decisions, identity-based models may be preferred for applications like managing local community funds.

Likewise, @gavofyork noted token-weighted systems effectively align voter incentives in areas like runtime upgrades but fall short in enabling broad inclusion.

This hints at a future with specialized voting primitives tailored to specific communities and use cases rather than a unilateral approach.

Criteria like the stakeholders involved, nature of decisions, need for identity, sybil-resistance requirements, and decision significance could guide the mapping of contexts to voting models.

For example, fellowship rankings may suffice for technical governance issues while quadratic voting could enable wider participation in funding decisions.

Exploring specialized voting systems tuned for purpose rather than blanket solutions allows capturing the strengths while mitigating weaknesses of different models.

Key Takeaways and Conclusion

The governance discussion unfolding on the Polkadot forums reveals the complex challenges of balancing stakeholder representation, legitimacy, and power structures in decentralized networks.

While the current OpenGov system has demonstrated effectiveness in aligning voter incentives towards beneficial outcomes, concerns persist around plutocratic concentrations of influence.

Alternative voting approaches like quadratic voting aim to strike a blend between token-based plutocracy and one-person-one-vote democracy. However, fundamentals like sybil-resistance must be established to prevent manipulation.

There are also arguments for specialized governance models tuned for specific community needs and decision contexts rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.

This nuanced issue resists easy answers, but the deliberation represents an important milestone in the continual evolution of governance systems.

As we collectively explore how to maximize legitimacy, inclusion, and participation, Polkadot stands poised to pioneer new decentralized governance frontiers. But open questions remain on the path ahead.

Additional Resources

For those interested in learning more about Polkadot OpenGov, here are some useful links to guides, tutorials, and communities:

• Forum post by brenzi on the topic of Quadratic Voting

• Daily posts about OpenGov

• Intro to Polkadot OpenGov

• Polkadot Official Website

• Polkadot Direction

About Polkadot Referendum Roundup

Referendum Roundup is a weekly newsletter aiming to make Polkadot governance more accessible through engaging, informative coverage and analysis.

Founded by a team of enthusiasts seeking to foster understanding and participation in Polkadot's evolving on-chain governance landscape, the newsletter condenses updates, conversations, and insights into a convenient weekly dispatch.

Each edition features deep dives on major proposals, overviews of treasury activity, featured tweets, and more. Our goal is equipping readers to stay involved in shaping the future of Polkadot in an educated way.