Nu's voting mechanisms are wonderful

In contrast to other communities, NuShareholders have the complete final say in any proposed changes to the network.

Watching so many people get coerced into decisions they don’t agree with in one of our competitors’ communities is disheartening. With Nu, the majority consensus always wins.


Nu’s voting mechanisms are wonderful, but come at a price…

That’s why you can truly say that this DAC (or DAB) is in the hands of the share holders. They need to decide, because the have something at stake: their NuShares.
…and that’s the reason why you need to educate people about NuShares before you sell them at random people. With NuShares you should/need/ought to take an active role…

One risk for Nu with the current voting mechanism is the fact that people, who do minting, but have no votes configured, render the voting system useless for deciding upon changes, progress, development.
Minting but (because of not realizing the results?) not voting (effectively voting against custodians, parking interest rates above 0 %, motions) can paralyze Nu…


An interesting side-effect of the Nu motion mechanism that few have discussed is that two contradictory motions can be put forward, and both can pass.

I suppose that could be resolved by executing the one that passes first, but this gives an advantage to whichever motion is put forward first. Now that I think about it, I guess that’s not so unreasonable.

1 Like

Yup, there’s a lot of things that need to be considered when thinking about and voting and how to put votes…
But just like in other concepts: if the majority decides to commit economical/technical/whatever suicide, you can’t really stop them nor should you try to stop them if you want to have a system that is truly based on consensus!

Outdated or unconfigured votes are one of the most prominent risks to the network in the coming weeks. In the short term this risk is being managed by selling NuShares only to highly involved individuals. In the long term, it will be managed by offering diverse data feeds that will automatically configure voting for individual users. Anyone can administer a data feed and a user can choose to use any data feed they like and switch any time they like. It is also possible to reject blocks from addresses that have a history of not configuring their vote, though the details of such a mechanism have not been worked out.

This is a problem to keep our eye on, but I am confident it is manageable.


Constitutionally speaking, it should the later motion that prevails, otherwise people who pass motions in the past will override people who pass motions in the present. People who pass a motion today are assumed to know what motions were passed previously (even if they don’t in practice)


Agreed. I think it should be assumed that any successful motion that contradicts a previous one was considered with a new set of evidence/information.

An example might be if a motion to display the logo of our largest retailing partner on was passed, but then one week later a subsequent motion was successful asking for it to be removed (after the retailing partner was found to be using child labor in a third-world country).