BobTHJ wrote:
I intend to make the following changes to the Vote Market agreement with the majority consent of its parties:
I consent to these changes. Hmm, we haven't had auctions since 2003, probably a good time to revisit the idea. One general problem I've noticed with the Vote Market, though: if an issue is sufficiently unimportant to some members that they're willing to sell their votes, it tends to also be sufficiently unimportant to other members that they don't bother to buy any votes. Things may work better when driven from the buying end by a proposal author, but it has to be a proposal that's neither good enough that everyone votes for it anyway, nor bad enough that everyone votes against it and is unwilling to be bribed. The major economic drivers in the past have been increased voting power, progress toward a win, and artificial scarcity (e.g. fees for getting proposals distributed and CFJs assigned). What new parallel systems could be created on the first two subjects? (B Nomic's rapiers come to mind, though they'd have to be more interesting than "I stab Zefram" before I'd vote for them here.) Proposal fees had a self-reinforcing slowing effect in the past, and CFJ fees would just be begging for economic ambiguities to cascade into the judicial process, so let's not go there.
