Nostr Web Client

Tell me more, what type of granularity do you want? With a threshold multisig of 48 people (for example) I think you can get pretty granular:

- A 50% vote requirement can be achieved with a threshold of 24

- 50% + 1 is equivalent to 25

- 67% is equivalent to 32

- 67% + 1 is equivalent to 33

- 90% is equivalent to 43

- 90% + 1 is equivalent to 44

etc.

That seems pretty granular to me, but I suspect you mean something different?

Patrick 2y ago

I don't think granularity was the right choice of words, maybe I should have used something like stakeholder differentiation. There needs to be a way for stakeholders to have varying levels of influence based on their stake in the organization.

It would be beneficial to assign voting percentages to individual stakeholders based on their respective contributions to the organization. This means that stakeholders who have made substantial investments or contributed significant assets would have a greater voting right compared to those with lighter contributions.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Super Testnet 2y ago

yeah that's a cool idea

I thought about making it bicameral. E.g. a "lower chamber" with 50 people in it and an "upper chamber" with 10. For any money to move you need 51% of the "lower chamber" plus a 2/3 majority from the "upper chamber." Something like that might be cool.

"based on their respective contributions to the organization"

Yeah like somehow make it so that if you contribute 25% of the money you get 25% of the voting power -- you might be able to do something like that by making a proposal that moves all the money into a new multisig where you have 25% of the keys, but everyone signs it with a signature that is only valid if a utxo exists which puts 25% more money into the multisig. So everyone "clears" you to get more keys only if you contribute a proportional amount of money.