Should We Implement a VP Cap? This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Cap all vp 13% 1,794,433 VP (32 votes) * Cap all delegated and district vp 1% 1,115 VP (5 votes) * Cap all district vp 1% 101 VP (7 votes) * Cap all delegated vp 1% 4,003 VP (5 votes) * Other (comment) 18% 2,518,391 VP (8 votes) * Invalid question/options 66% 9,236,846 VP (32 votes)

The thing is that systems such as Proof of Humanity are not for everything. Some people may want to vote and not get identified to protect their privacy, PoH is not going to work for them as they have to upload their faces. And also, what happens when a real human cannot get verified through PoH? I mean, PoH can also fail since the oracles have a chance of failing. I think the human factor in a decentralized way is okay for some stuff (such as places of conversation like Discord or a forum) but not for using the on-chain power. But that's my personal opinion.

There will always be an imbalance of VP whether tied to monetary contributions or as suggested above tied to wearables submissions, in-world activity, building, etc. Some people just contribute a bit more than others, that's okay too. [quote="dao, post:1, topic:20155"] Some other options are devaluing delegated and district VP, or invaliding some or all delegated and district VP. [/quote] My main issue with this idea is the focus or the solution is taking action on an individual's property or assets (not the delegated ones but the delegator). I agree there's some change needed in the system but I do not believe the change should start from limiting or restricting individual's assets.

agreed. But that does not address the current power imbalance within dcl

I would say while this does address spreading VP out in a more sustainable way, I do not think this solution addresses the current power imbalance within dcl.

I agree with web3, instead of capping VP- it would be of beneficial to create new pathways of obtaining VP such as voting, L2 wearables, and published collections.

Glad you asked :grin: Lets say that someone finds a way to create 100 fake accounts, with 100 VP each, and a normal member only has 1 account with 100 VP. That is a ratio of 0,01. Keep in mind that this 100 fake account should be linked to a seemingly live social account, and Vouched by other people, while noone noticing (in a system similar to Proof of Humanity). Its a complex process, so maybe 1 or 2 people will be able to pull it off. Compare it to now, where most people has around, lets say 100 VP, but at the same time other people has 4000000 VP. That is a ratio of 0,000025, much worse. And that difference is true for many people. Not just 1 or 2.

More ways to earn VP can be introduced, such as rewarding wearables submissions, in-world activity, building, exploring, and active voting.

but then you can just send MANA to different accounts and execute with the full VP (unless we are talking about LANDs).

Voting **Other**, I think we should simultaneously: - implement a function over the VP in a way that we get a sweet spot. - Someone with 1 VP gets 0.1 VP - Someone with 100 VP gets 100 VP - Someone with 500k VP gets 150 VP - implement a Proof of Social Life system that links an address with a social media account (Discord, Twitter, Github)