I think I like that concept, although still on the fence. You can still show some level of support. Especially @MHPS latest motion is something I would vote partially for without further information. I like the idea/concept, but struggle with the execution/expected response and priorities.
On the other hand a clear yes/no would say enough. Abstaining might be something to consider, but I understand that creates different problems.
In case yâall didnât catch it, Creon pointed out that you can weight your votes based on how the network is already voting, providing a decentralized ânews feedâ of sorts.
Right, its more a recommendation system. Like when you go to Amazon for the first time, it will only show you the most common products bought by all people. Over time, if you order products on Amazon, you will notice that the product recommendations are more close to things you are interested in.
Here Amazon is the blockchain, your orders are your votes and other signers are the recommendation. So if you agreed with Cybnate on all votes in the last weeks, but not with me, and there is a new motion which you are missing and Cybnates adds it while I donât, then your client will also vote for the motion if you enable this feature.
This is not in conflict with data feeds, they still serve their full original purpose. However, I think data feeds should also provide the weight for each motion. This would then also allow to apply the same method only to data feeds, such that you can have your own mixed data feed automatically determined through machine learning.
So it is more a recommendation engine on data feeds than a weighted vote?
Both can be done. You can create a mixed data feed out of other data feeds, use previous blocks or a combination of both. The content of a data feed and the voting of a block are the same.
I see.