On Feb 5, 2008 8:44 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > This is part of the reason I was attempting to broaden Vote Market. People don't seem to be using it for votes. They could, but we haven't had very many controversial proposals where individual players aren't already polarized to one side or the other. However, I think there might be some promise to using Buy & Sell tickets for influence in contests (such as I have attempted to do in the AAA).
BobTHJ
