首页 > EOS柚子 > 正文

公民投票的公平性和同一性

EOS技术爱好者 2018-07-14 20:44

  版权声明:

  以下内容来自微信公共帐号“EOS技术爱好者”,搜索“EOSTechLover”即可订阅,作者Darren Tay,中文翻译Joey,校对Lochaiching。转载必须保留以上声明。仅授权原文转载。

  本文推送先中文后英文。

  公民投票的公平性和同一性

  Fairness and Identity within Referendums

  世界不是公平的,但这并不意味着我们不应该为一个更公平的世界而奋斗。

  - EOShenzhen

  The world isn’t made fair, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for a fairer world.

  -Written by Darren from EOShenzhen

  -Proposal by EOShenzhen

  1.建立一个更加公平的世界

  1. Building a Fairer World

  追求公平和平等的理想是社会赖以建立的两项核心原则。这些价值观被纳入我们的信仰,因为平等的权利有利于更繁荣的经济。个体可以感受到社会联系并在社区中平等参与,有平等的机会变高效,并灌输每个人都受到平等尊重的信心(甚至是对自由的错误认知)。这一直是社会从单一统治走向民主的主要推动力,也是资本主义的采用使每个人都有权掌握自己的命运。

  The ideals of fairness and equality are two of the core tenets that society is built upon. Such values were enshrined into our beliefs, as equal rights allow for a more prosperous economy. Individuals can feel socially connected and equally participative in their community, equal opportunity to be productive, and to instill confidence that everyone is respected equally (and even the false perception of freedom). That has been the main thrust of society’s progression from single-rule to democracy, and the adoption of capitalism such that every individual feels empowered to chart his/her own destiny.

  然而,有时朋友也会发现差异,并成为彼此的敌人。在精英制度中对公平的这种鼓励并不完美,运气会妨碍——从一个人与生俱来的权利到天生的品格和社交网络。此外,当一个人没有最大限度地利用自己的机会,慢慢地发现自己甚至被两极分化为在社会中只保有最基本的人权的人时,一开始同样的被激励的努力付出和思维方式会反转并伤害到他。当他缺乏辛勤劳动导致食物匮乏甚至投票权时,他是否有权投诉?那么公平与动机之间的界限应该在哪里呢?或者可以说资源财富是指谁最了解的关键指标吗?

  However, at times, such friends could find differences and become foes to one another. Such encouragement of fairness in meritocracy isn’t perfect, and luck gets in the way - from one’s birthright to one’s inbred personality and one’s network. Additionally, the very same effort encouraged and mindset could turn around and bite one when one doesn’t maximize their chances and slowly find themselves polarized in society to even the most basic of human rights. Does one then have the right to complain when his lack of hardwork led to a lack of food, or even the right to vote? Where then should the line be drawn between fairness and motivation? Or could it be said that resource wealth is the key indicator of who knows best?

  从任何机制的构建,甚至是EOS管理机制中都可以不断地看到这种冲突。因此,为了建立我们的公投机制,在是否两者其一或者两者的平衡应该是要达到的最终的目标这方面上,整篇文章考察了公平和决心之间的微弱差别。

  This tussle can be constantly seen through the building of any system, even through the EOS Governance framework. Therefore, to build our referendum, the fine line between fairness and determination is examined throughout this write-up on whether either ends, or a balance, should be the ultimate objective.

  2. 公平的尺度

  2. Scales of Fairness

  正义可以被看作是尺度的两端,并且每个模型中涉及的不同程度的公平性都会被探究。该机制可以像信访制度一样公平,也可以像跨国公司和民众之间的鸿沟一样真实。

  Justice can be thought of as two ends of the scale, and varying degrees of fairness involved within each model will be explored. The system can be as fair as a petition system, or as realistic as the divide between the MNCs and the populace.

  影响公平性的变量包括货币/投票代币、抵押和取消抵押以及时间。这些因素在影响公投制度的公平程度方面发挥着重要的作用。

  Variables affecting fairness include monetary/voting tokens, staking and unstaking, and time. These play an important role in affecting the degree of fairness of the referendum system.

  所提出的这些模型看起来像同一枚硬币的两个面,虽然涉及相似的元素,但模型之间的实际情况却存在很大差异。

  Though the models proposed seem like two faces of the same coin, involving similar elements, the reality is largely different between models.

  2.1货币代币

  2.1 Monetary Tokens

  在我们社会几乎所有的民主公投中,每个人无论身份如何都有权投一票。 这是我们可以想象到的最公平的制度,同时也是分权所基于的理念 - 除了保护信息之外,确保现在每个人在社区中都有发言权,这些社区装备了完善的技术,可以对任何决策中的每一次投票负责, 没有欺诈或浪费大量时间的风险,并扭转了选举那些我们认为可以认同并代表我们理念的代表的需要。

  In nearly all democratic referendums in our society, every individual, regardless of status, is entitled to one vote. This is the fairest system we can imagine, and it’s the same ideals that decentralization was founded upon - beyond safekeeping of information, to ensure everyone now has a voice in a community well-equipped with the technology to account for every vote in any decision, without risk of fraud or wastage of copious amounts of time, and reversing the need to elect representatives who we believe we can identify with and can represent our ideals.

  然而,例如美国投票制度不断出现的不公平现象,背后是现实世界的影响,超越了简单的投票机制 ——通过占据我们有限的时间来为他们的候选人宣传,更富裕的个体有能力影响普通人的思想。 类似于人们如何被认为是安全中最薄弱的环节,我们可以成为我们自己的敌人,反对保障那些我们真正想要的东西。

  Yet the unfairness constantly voiced out on the American voting system for instance, lies behind real world influence that goes beyond the simplistic voting mechanism - the ability for richer individuals to influence the thoughts of the average individual, through occupying the limited time we have with propaganda for their candidates. Similar to how people are known to be the weakest link in security, we can be our own enemies against securing what we truly desire.

  但是,在EOS公投机制中,我们可以选择使公平性或多或少地明显一些。

  On the EOS referendum system, however, we can choose to make the fairness more or less blatant.

  在公平方面,每一个投票人只能对提议的每一个公投做出二选一的选择。在这种情况下,因为公投者之间共享资源的缺少,整体不达成一致会产生多种的投票结果,所以时间不会产生任何差异。

  On the fairness front, every voter can be given only a binary option to each referendum that is proposed. In this instance, time does not play any difference as multiple votes can occur without compromising upon the integrity due to the lack of a shared resource between referendums.

  我们应该选择另一种方式,当需要通过支付费用来获得一个人的投票权时设置一个固定的代币费用以此进行投票。 这种“支付”会略微损害公平性,但会给予那些获得支付权利的人一个同等的发言权,类似于物质购买。

  An alternative should we choose that there is a need to pay for one’s vote is to set a fix token fee to vote. Such “payment” compromises fairness slightly, but gives those who earned such right to pay for an equal voice, similar to material purchases.

  如果我们选择一个不太公平的系统,每个选民都可以获得类似数量的代币,类似于拍卖系统。 例如:每个选民都获得100个代币,并允许在各种公民投票中抵押这些代币。 为了确保公平,时间必须在今后起到一定作用(下文解释)。 同样,这些代币可以从一个人的收入中扣除,提供让人想去获得投票权的动机。

  Should we choose a less fair system, every voter can be issued a similar number of tokens, similar to an auction system. For example - every voter is given 100 Tokens, and allowed to stake such tokens across a wide range of referendums. To ensure fairness, time has to play a factor from henceforth (explained below). Similarly, such tokens can be deducted from one’s earnings to provide the incentive to earn the right to vote.

  另一方面是一个自由资本主义制度,媒体影响力现在被公然转化为投票权。 任何人都可以自由地将他们拥有的资源投入到投票中。这鼓励个人以建立公平的制度为代价来争取这一权利,这可能损害某些公民投票的完整性。 有人强调资源丰富的公司可以在一次公民投票中轻易抵押选票,然后再跳到另一个公投中去。

  At the other end is a free capitalist system, where the media influence is now blatantly translated into the right to vote instead. Anyone is free to stake whatever resources they own into voting. This encourages individuals to strive for this right at the expense of building a fair system, which could compromise the integrity of certain referendums. This has been highlighted that resourceful companies could easily stake votes in one referendum and then hop unto another.

  2.2 时间

  2.2 Time

  只有当货币资源在公投者之间共享时,时间才起作用。当一个人需要考虑在一次公投中的决定会如何影响另一次公投时,时间可能会影响决策。这类似于在现实世界中购买商品的例子,一个人必须考虑如何最好地使用他的现金。这个人可能需要为他的家购买微波炉和床,但他拥有的资源只能买一样。现在他被迫选择对他来说更为必要的东西,而不是仅仅基于物品本身的优点。强制进行这种比较可能意味着由于资源不足一个同样有益的物品会被忽略。

  Time plays a role only when the monetary resource is shared between referendums. This potentially compromises decision-making when one has now to consider how his decision in one referendum could affect that of another. This is similar to example buying goods in the real world, where an individual has to consider how to best use his cash. This person might need to purchase a microwave oven and a bed for his home, but has only resources for one. He now is forced to choose which is more necessary to him, rather than based on the mere merits of the item itself. Forcing such a comparison could mean that an item that is equally beneficial can be neglected due to the lack of resources.

  上面用于说明的例子仅适用于对称信息。 但是,当引入时间时,由于共享资源,现在存在信息不对称。 根据上面的例子,现在想象消费者找到了一个更便宜的微波炉,让他可以同时买床和微波炉,但因为他有非对称信息,他相信第一个微波炉的价格非常合适并买了它。 因此,他并没有被给予一个公平的机会去达到购买物品的最佳效用。

  The example demonstrated above only works in symmetrical information. However, when time is introduced, there is now asymmetrical information because of the shared resource. Working upon the above example, imagine now that the consumer found a cheaper microwave oven that now allows him to buy both the bed and the oven, but because he had asymmetrical information, he believed the first oven was well-worth its’ price and bought it instead. Therefore, he was not given a fair chance to decide the optimal utility amongst the items.

  这与拍卖类似,但拍卖系统运作良好只因为假定参加拍卖的所有人都是富有的个人,因此金钱范围不是限制,所以人与人之间的价格分歧与他们到底重视那一件物品的什么部分相匹配。公民投票并非如此。

  This works similar to that of an auction, but the auction system only works well because it is assumed that all individuals at an auction house are wealthy individuals, and therefore money is not a ceiling, and thus the price discrimination between individuals is matched at what they exactly value that very item. Such is not the case with referendums.

  公平性的一方面,公民投票应在前一个月的截止日期前提交,例如6月20日。 然后在7月1日审理和发布公民投票,给出一个月的投票窗口。 下个月的公民投票必须在7月20日之前进行核对,并在8月1日公布。为了公平起见,可以同时发布相同数量的公民投票,或者针对一些同等的投票机会分为几个类型,例如每个类别1个或所有来自同一类别,具体取决于比较是在类别之间还是在类别之内。

  On one end of fairness, referendums should be submitted by a due date within the previous month, say 20th June. Referendums are then collated and issued on 1st July, giving a month’s window to vote upon. The next month’s referendums then have to be collated by 20th July and released on 1st August. To allow for fairness, an equal number of referendums can be released simultaneously, and/or categorized into types of referendums for equal voting opportunities eg. 1 from each category or all from the same category, depending on whether the comparison is between or within categories.

  另一方面,时间不是一个问题,允许信息不对称,并潜在地希望个人将重视公民投票的价值而不是与它们是否是未来的一些机会进行比较。

  On the other end, time can be a non-issue, allowing for asymmetrical information, and potentially hoping that individuals will value the referendum for what it is worth rather than comparing against what could be future opportunities.

  2.3 抵押和取消抵押

  2.3 Staking and Unstaking

  这取决于所选的公投机制,根据非共享资源系统(二进制系统)中的非必要性而异。正如强调的那样,一个富有的选民可以随意地跳转和抵押,以满足接受门槛,然后取消抵押再跳转到另一个公民投票,这很容易给可能无法满足社区广泛审查和批准的公民投票以误报。

  This depends on the referendum system chosen, ranging from a non-necessity in non-shared resource systems (binary systems). As highlighted, a rich voter could easily hop around and stake to meet the acceptance threshold, then unstake and jump to another referendum, easily giving false positives for referendums that might not meet the widespread scrutiny and approval of the community.

  这可以通过几种方式来解决。 首先,可以使用时间因素,使得在月末决定的任何内容将被计为投票。 否则,可以引入一个锁定期。 目前在社区中流行的是3天的锁定时间。 然而,如果对这个区块生产者进行的各种重要的公民投票或者提议的所有公民投票之间不知何故提前3天或有更长的时间间隔的话,那么这将不是一个解决方案。

  This could be solved in a few ways. Firstly, the time factor could be used such that whatever is decided upon by the end of the month will be counted as the voting. Otherwise, a down period could be introduced. Currently circulating amongst the community is a down-time of 3 days. However, it can be argued that this is a non-solution if various important referendums to this block producer, or if all the referendums proposed somehow had a lead-time of 3 days or more between them.

  强调一下,允许在投票中重复使用代币不是问题,例如,如果一个贫穷的生产者每个月生产1个代币而富人生产100个,那么取消抵押在上个月富人使用的100个代币和相对贫穷的生产者的1个代币可能导致数字差异,但不是百分比。 只要门槛是一个百分比问题,就无需顾虑。

  To clarify, allowing tokens to be reused is a non-issue in voting as for example, if a poor producer produces 1 token per month while the rich individual produces 100 tokens, unstaking the 100 tokens utilized the previous month for the rich individual and 1 token for the poor producer might lead to a numerical difference, but not in percentage. So long as the threshold is a percentage issue, this is a non-concern.

  除了防止重复使用被抵押的选票之外,解决此问题的一种方法是检查身份,并设置一个明显低于接受门槛的内部门槛,例如,所需的15%中的一半只能由单一身份持有。

  One way to solve this issue other than preventing staked votes from being reused, is to collate identity, and set an internal threshold that is significantly lower than the threshold of acceptance, for example, 50% of the 15% required can only be held by any single identity.

  另一种方法是确保在门槛之上,至少3个人必须组成门槛。

  Otherwise, another method is to ensure that on top of the threshold, a minimum of 3 individuals must make up the threshold.

  最后,这两个方法也可以结合在一起,使得至少3个个体、每人最少5%的可能性允许公投通过。这些措施让公民投票能更好地代表一个社区。

  Finally, these two can also be combined such that a minimum of 3 individuals, each with minimally 5%, to allow for a referendum to pass. Such measures would then allow a referendum to better represent a community.

  3. 身份

  3. Identity

  如果想要讨论防止双重投票或投票洗钱,那么只有在涉及上述所讨论的最后一种情况时,身份才会成为公平性的问题。

  Identity can be argued as an issue in fairness only if it concerns the final scenario posted above, if the argument is the prevention of double-voting or vote-laundering.

  如果一个选民用多个身份进行投票,这并非是问题所在,因为投票仍然反应了他的欲望。 总而言之,它可能是一个更好的代表,因为他将全部资源投入到投票过程中。 这只是一个透明度的问题,因为它可能会给社区带来关于支持的错误印象,但如果没有对上述建立公平性的最后一种情况投入的话,它与投票的公平性无关。

  If a voter votes from multiple identities, it isn’t an issue as the voting is still illustrative of his desires. Altogether, it might be a better representation as it’s the utility of his full resources being invested upon the voting process. This is only a concern of transparency as it might create a false impression upon the community about the support, but it is staunchly a non-issue in relation to the fairness of voting if the final scenario above of creating fairness is not invested upon.

  然而,仅仅为了为社区创造透明度并影响人们印象时,身份仍然是一个应该被重视的重要投入。 如果还有其他的接受门槛,那么身份按理说是一个需要考虑的关键因素。

  However, identity merely to create transparency for the community and affect their impressions is still an important investment that should be looked upon. If there are other threshold of acceptance, then identity is arguably a crucial factor to consider.

  4. 接受门槛

  4. Threshold of Acceptance

  至关重要的是,正如上面所讨论的那样,任何达到标准的连续几天都可能会减少富有投资者在公民投票之间跳跃的欺诈行为,但会给整个商业流程带来显著延迟,并且不能完全消除欺诈这一问题。

  Crucially, as slightly discussed above, any consecutive days for a criteria to be met could potentially reduce fraud of a rich investor jumping between referendums, but adds significant delay to the entire business process, and does not completely eliminate the issue.

  以下是目前讨论的标准。 尤其有争议的是投票总数,似乎没有理由选择这样的任意数字。

  Below is currently the criteria discussed. Contentious especially are the vote totals, for which there seems to be no reason to choose such arbitrary numbers.

  当一项新提案进入智能合约时,120天倒计时开始,代币持有人可以开始对其进行投票:是或否

  When a new proposal is entered into a smart contract, a 120-day countdown begins and token holders can begin to vote on it: yes or no.

  在一天中智能合约将帐户名称及其投票选择保存到表格中

  Throughout the day, the smart contracts save account names and their vote selections to a table.

  在每天结束时,智能合约对已保存帐户名称的抵押代币余额进行快照

  At the end of each day, the smart contract takes a snap shot of the staked token balances of the saved account names.

  从该快照中,计算每个用户为每个投票选择所持有的抵押代币数量

  From that snapshot, count the amount of staked tokens held by each user for each vote selection.

  如果满足以下条件,则会记录投票总数:

  - 投票总数>所有EOS的15%

  - 同意投票总数>(反对投票总数+ 10%)

  Vote totals are recorded if the following criteria are met:

  - total_votes > 15% of total EOS

  - total_votes_yes > (total_votes_no + 10%)

  如果连续30天仍然符合标准,则投票通过

  If the criteria continues to be met for 30 consecutive days, the vote passes.

  如果在第90天之后的任何时候投票下降或保持低于+ 10%或> 15%,它就会被自动否决,因为它不再能够再保持两个门槛连续30天。 (假设它在90天之前尚未通过)

  If at any point after day 90 the vote drops or remains below either +10% or >15%, it dies, as its no longer possible to hold the two thresholds for 30 days. (Assuming it didn't already pass before day 90).

  如果在满足连续30天达到门槛前已经过去120天,则提案将终止

  If 120-days pass before achieving the threshold for 30 consecutive days, the proposal dies.

  应该讨论宪法中关于选择这些数字的理由的长期建议,因为它们既没有超过半数同意也没有任何合理的解释。

  The long-standing recommendation in the constitution should be discussed as to the rationale of these numbers chosen as they neither hold simple majority or any reasonable interpretation.

  5. 提议

  5. Proposal

  最后,EOShenzhen认为,人们应该更倾向于更公平的制度。 归根结底,基本人权应该在必要时不受影响,投票应该是其中之一。虽然绝大多数人可能不知道什么是他们的最佳利益,但绝大多数人仍然应该掌握自己的未来。

  Conclusively, EOShenzhen believes that one should tip more towards a fairer system. Ultimately, basic human rights should be untouched as necessary, and voting should be one of them. It might be agreed upon that although the vast majority might not know what is in their best interests, it is also the vast majority who should still chart their own future.

  因此,EOShenzhen提出,每个人都应该有权对每一次与公开申请相同的公民投票进行“是或否”投票,并且对身份进行核对但不发布,以创造透明度而不影响个人每一项决议的投票内容。 我们建立的民主制度的这一历史体系最终经历了几个世纪的实验取得胜利,这确实是有原因的。

  Consequently, EOShenzhen proposes that every individual should be merely entitled to a “yes or no” vote on each and every referendum similar to that of a petition, and identities be collated, but not released, to create transparency and not influence an individual’s decision on what each individual voted for. This historic system of our established democracy ultimately has had centuries of experiment to come out triumphant, and indeed there must be a reason so.

  虽然应该有收集EOS Tokens的动机,但投票不应该成为他们斗争领域的动机或途径。

  Though there should be an incentive to collecting EOSTokens, however, voting should not be the incentive nor avenue for their battleground.

  本文封面图片来自网络

  相关文章:

  We are EOShenzhen

  不同入口如何投票:

  imToken钱包

  火币

  portal

  更多内容,加入我们的知识星球吧~

  关于我们更多联系:

  Website:https://eoshenzhen.io

  Steem:https://steemit.com/@eoshenzhen

  Busy:https://busy.org/@eoshenzhen

  Telegram:https://t.me/eoshenzhen

  Twitter:https://twitter.com/eostechlover

  简书:EOS技术爱好者

  新浪微博:EOSTechLover

  EOShenzhen的投票账号:eoshenzhenio

阅读更多

上一篇:Thomas Cox直播对话中国社区:新宪法草案与EOS生态治理齐头并进

下一篇:倒计时1天、在不可能三角里、见证共识奇迹—引力生态峰会来袭!

您可能喜欢:

关于我们联系我们作者投稿
Copyright © 2013 比特巴手机版
币圈人都爱上的网站,新闻行情教程人物测评资讯大全