How Voting Influence Shapes TrueSight DAO’s Governance: Policies and Ongoing Decisions

TrueSight DAO’s governance mirrors the separation of powers in traditional political systems, where the Legislative branch passes laws and the Executive branch implements them. In our DAO, members vote to pass policies using staked TDG (TrueSight DAO Governance tokens) in our vault at https://truesight.me/vault, akin to the Legislative branch, while ongoing decisions, like setting cacao prices under a potential future policy, use a quadratic voting system with unstaked TDG, akin to the Executive branch. Adopted in 2022, quadratic voting applies only to ongoing decisions, ensuring fair and dynamic influence. This blog post explains how voting influence is set, its purposes, and its trade-offs, written for all DAO members, including those new to cryptocurrency. Our goal is to empower you to shape our DAO’s future through discussions in our WhatsApp Beer Hall and Telegram community channel.

The Separation of Powers: A Historical Perspective

The separation of Legislative and Executive powers is a cornerstone of many political systems, ensuring balanced governance. Here are two historical examples:

• United States (1789–Present): The U.S. Constitution established a Legislative branch (Congress, comprising the House of Representatives and Senate) to create laws, such as tax policies or trade regulations. The Executive branch, led by the President, implements these laws, for example, by negotiating trade deals or setting agency priorities. This separation prevents any single entity from dominating, much like our DAO’s distinction between policy votes (staked TDG) and ongoing decisions (unstaked TDG).

• United Kingdom (Parliamentary System, Evolving Since the Magna Carta, 1215): The UK’s Parliament (Legislative) passes laws, such as budgets or trade policies, while the Executive, led by the Prime Minister and Cabinet, carries them out, for instance, by managing trade negotiations or public services. This division has balanced law-making with implementation for centuries, similar to how our DAO separates policy approval from ongoing decisions like cacao pricing.

In TrueSight DAO, staked TDG holders act like the Legislative branch, deciding which policies to enact, while unstaked TDG holders, using quadratic voting, act like the Executive branch, making ongoing decisions under those policies. This structure ensures fairness and clarity in our decentralized governance.

How Voting Influence is Determined in TrueSight DAO

TrueSight DAO’s governance separates policy votes (Legislative) from ongoing decisions (Executive):

• Staked TDG in the vault determines influence for voting on whether to pass policies, without quadratic voting.

• Unstaked TDG in your wallet determines influence for ongoing decisions, like cacao pricing, using quadratic voting.

Members may have earned TDG through DAO activities, sold it, or staked it in the vault for policy voting. Your influence depends on the relevant TDG holdings, and reducing unstaked TDG (e.g., by selling or staking) lowers your influence in ongoing decisions. Here’s how each process works:

For Policy Votes (Staked TDG, Non-Quadratic)

• Step 1: Measure Staked TDG

  
  

  Your voting power for policy votes (e.g., approving a cacao pricing policy) is based on TDG staked in the vault at https://truesight.me/vault. For example, if you’ve staked 100 TDG, this is your starting point.

• Step 2: Calculate Voting Power

  
  

  Policy votes do not use quadratic voting. Your voting power is typically proportional to your staked TDG, subject to our governance rules (details available in our WhatsApp Beer Hall or Telegram channel).

• Step 3: Vote on Policies

  
  

  You use this influence to vote “yes” or “no” on policy proposals, such as whether to allow sales members to set cacao prices. All members with staked TDG can participate.

For Ongoing Decisions Like Cacao Pricing (Unstaked TDG, Quadratic Voting)

• Step 1: Measure Unstaked TDG

  
  

  Your voting power for ongoing decisions (e.g., setting cacao prices if the policy passes) is based on TDG held outside the vault. For example, 100 unstaked TDG is your starting point. TDG staked or sold doesn’t count.

• Step 2: Apply the Square Root

  
  

  We take the square root of your unstaked TDG to calculate your base voting power (e.g., √100 = 10). This quadratic formula ensures fairness by reducing the influence of large holders.

• Step 3: Normalize Voting Power

  
  

  We sum the square roots of all eligible members’ unstaked TDG (e.g., sales-associated members for pricing). Your influence is your square root divided by this total (e.g., 10/100 = 10% of votes).

• Step 4: Vote on Prices

  
  

  If a pricing policy is approved, sales-associated members vote on cacao prices (e.g., $5/kg, $6/kg) in ongoing votes. Your vote’s weight reflects your influence, and reducing unstaked TDG (e.g., by staking or selling) lowers your influence in future votes.

This separation ensures that policy-making (Legislative) and ongoing decisions (Executive) are distinct, with quadratic voting reserved for the latter to promote fairness and flexibility.

Purposes of Our Voting Systems

Our dual governance system, with quadratic voting for ongoing decisions and staked TDG for policy votes, serves key purposes:

1. Promotes Fair Decision-Making Quadratic voting’s square root for unstaked TDG prevents large holders from dominating ongoing decisions like cacao pricing, while staked TDG policy votes ensure broad participation in shaping our DAO’s rules.
   

2. Rewards Diverse Engagement Staking TDG in the vault signals commitment to policy governance, while holding unstaked TDG reflects active participation in ongoing decisions. Both forms of engagement, earned through DAO contributions, are rewarded with influence.
   

3. Separates Powers for Clarity Like the U.S. Congress passing laws and the President implementing them, our system separates policy-making (staked TDG) from implementation (unstaked TDG with quadratic voting). This ensures each process is fit for purpose.
   

4. Prepares for Future Policies A proposed policy to allow sales members to set cacao prices is an example of a future policy requiring staked TDG to pass. If approved, it would use quadratic voting with unstaked TDG for pricing, ensuring both stages are inclusive.

   
   

How Voting Influence Trades-offs of Our Voting Systems

Our governance system balances fairness and engagement but has trade-offs:

Advantages

• Equitable Ongoing Decisions: Quadratic voting’s square root for unstaked TDG ensures balanced pricing votes, preventing dominance by large holders.

• Clear Separation of Powers: Staked TDG for policy votes and unstaked TDG for ongoing decisions mirror historical systems like the U.S. and UK, ensuring clarity and purpose-driven governance.

• Rewards Commitment: Staking TDG for policies and holding unstaked TDG for ongoing decisions reward different forms of engagement, incentivizing participation.

• Transparent and Secure: Both systems use blockchain for transparent, fair vote counting.

Challenges

• Complexity for Newcomers: Quadratic voting’s square root, normalization, and the staked/unstaked TDG distinction may confuse crypto newcomers. We’ll provide resources in our WhatsApp Beer Hall and Telegram channel.

• Limited Influence Without Holdings: Staking TDG reduces unstaked holdings, lowering pricing influence, while unstaked TDG holders can’t vote on policies. Members must balance their TDG to participate fully.

• Strategic Behavior Risks: Some might manipulate unstaked TDG (e.g., splitting across wallets) to game quadratic voting or staked TDG for policy votes. Blockchain transparency and governance rules help mitigate this.

• Access to TDG: Members who’ve sold or staked most TDG may have limited influence, requiring opportunities to earn more tokens.

Why Voting Influence Matters for TrueSight DAO

Our governance system, with staked TDG for policy votes and quadratic voting for ongoing decisions, is the foundation of TrueSight DAO’s decentralized democracy. It ensures that policies, like the proposed cacao pricing policy, are approved fairly, while ongoing decisions, like setting prices, reflect active members’ expertise. The separation of powers—Legislative (staked TDG) and Executive (unstaked TDG with quadratic voting)—creates a balanced, inclusive system, much like the U.S. and UK systems have done for centuries.

We’re committed to making this system accessible to all members, regardless of cryptocurrency experience. Whether you’re a veteran contributor or new to DAOs, we want you to feel confident using your TDG to shape our future.

Get Involved with TrueSight DAO

As we discuss policies like cacao pricing in our WhatsApp Beer Hall and Telegram community channel, here’s how you can engage:

• Join the Conversation: Participate in ongoing discussions about quadratic voting and TDG governance in our WhatsApp Beer Hall and Telegram channel.

• Manage Your TDG: Check your staked TDG at https://truesight.me/vault for policy votes and unstaked TDG for ongoing decisions. Earn more through DAO activities.

• Share Feedback: Share your thoughts on our voting systems in our community channels to improve accessibility.

• Prepare to Vote: Use staked TDG to vote on policies and unstaked TDG for ongoing decisions like cacao pricing, if approved.

TrueSight DAO’s governance system empowers us to make fair, inclusive decisions. Let’s use it to build a thriving community and market!

This post was created to educate TrueSight DAO members about how voting influence is set for policies and ongoing decisions. For more information or to get involved, join our WhatsApp Beer Hall or Telegram community channel.