Is the current Waves Token Rating system fair?

[Angry_Panda_ROAR]

Is the current Waves Token Rating system fair?

• Yes
• No
• It should be improved

Current system risks

• A rich WCT holder can decide which tokens bring down or gain value, manipulating the market.
• Anyone can decide if another token is valid or not, even if he never invested in that project.
• Haters who have enough WCT can decrease the rating of a competing project.
• A rich WCT holder can give a good rating to a scam token.
  
  

My personal proposals

• The Waves token rating system should allow to vote only those who have the token for which they are voting for (i.e. you can vote on XYZ token only if you hold it on your portfolio)

• To avoid manipulation, the vote should be allowed only to those who holds a minimum amount of that tokens and the vote should not be weighed but counts as 1 vote per address. i.e. You can vote for XYZ token only if you hold min 1 XYZ token and your rating counts 1 also if you hold 10000 XYZ tokens in that address. Otherwise, if XYZ is a scam token, the person who issued the token would be able to self-vote for its token leveraging the weight of its own portfolio.

• You can allow voting to 1 WCT holders, if you want, but this is not a necessary requirement!
  
  

Your proposals and ideas
Any other proposals and ideas are really welcome. Share it!

[MrTurtle]

1 person owns more then 15% from the WCT supply.
With this kept in mind, this 1 person basically decides about every single token his/hers future.
In case he casts against your token, you are out.
This is not decentralization, this is capitalism.

[Redfish]

If they want to improve this voting system, it should not be based according to WCT holdings but according to number of Voters

What happens was the richer your are, the powerful you become and you can trample easily other project just by your 1 votes and completely bring bad appearance to other project

Say what, if you don’t like that project because it threaten your, down vote it and it will be bad! lol!

Other- Just buy more WCT to bring good apperance to your project,

who give the *** to that token rating as of the moment?

[xmofuffo]

ofcourse its not fair when a scam fake vostok token get 4th place with 207 votes. this is a joke.

[Axai_Token]

Well must say there is true arguments. No comment…
Eric

[VladEx]

The current system is not fair and it should be improved, especially in terms of the main point of risks

[kimbimlim]

I completely disagree that only token holders should be allowed to vote on a token (why should anybody vote against their self-interest?). Your proposal means that if I do my due diligence and come to the conclusion that a token is a bad investment, I have to buy said token in order to rate.

Imo the current rating system is pretty useless and I would rather have no voting system at all. One vote one address is even better than the current approach

“This is not decentralization, this is capitalism” lol at that sentence. A decentralized system is one of the purest forms of capitalism there is, do or die.

[Angry_Panda_ROAR]

I completely disagree that only token holders should be allowed to vote on a token (why should anybody vote against their self-interest?).

I really understand your point of view and I partially agreed with you.
I had same doubts about it and before deciding if it was fair to give a non-investor the same power to rate an asset. However, I also tried to analyze some cons that could have canceled the pros, i.e.:

• The risk that rich people or whales can manipulate the token rating system giving a high rate to the assets in which they invest and a very low rate to all the other projects.

• Some communities can push members to vote against the other communities, triggering a war between communities. And this would not be good for Waves ecosystem at all, because we will only obtain bad rates for all projects. This would hinder the growth of the platform as it would keep new potential investors away…

Moreover, I would consider the token rating more as a customer feedback on a product. For this reason, to leave a feedback it should be “necessary” that the investor really own and use that product (in this case, asset). If the product is good, I rate it high, while if it is bad, I rate it low. It’s not about voting against itself. It’s about giving the community a feedback about an asset in which I concretely invested in.

Because of this, I don’t feel like agreeing about giving the SAME POWER (yes, it is a power) to rate an asset we don’t own, while I could agree and I would feel more at ease if non-investors had less weight. It could be considered one vote one address to investors and a much lower ratio (i.e. 1/5-1/10) to non-investors.

Your proposal means that if I do my due diligence and come to the conclusion that a token is a bad investment, I have to buy said token in order to rate.

Again, I can’t totally disagree with you.
However I would like you consider that when we buy a product, i.e. a smartphone, maybe we ask an opinion to our friends based on their experience, we watch video reviews, read technical specs, but we can’t really give a rating based on other people’s informations until we own and test the product by ourselves every day in a real use. It’s only at this point that we really can give a feedback.

I know that it is not exactly the same thing with crypto assets, but there are some similar points to consider.

Before investing in an asset, we search some info on its website, read the announcement on waves forum, check the roadmap and whitepaper, sure, but our opinion is based on a research we probably did in few minutes/hours/days?

When we don’t own that asset we are influenced by other’s opinion, we don’t follow everyday’s news, announcements, we don’t know what appens in the telegram group and we don’t keep in touch with the team and project updates etc. The time we spend to know a project is much more lower than when we own and trade an asset.

So there are many things to consider and any opinion is useful to find the best solution.

[letsgowaves]

What’s the problem with it? Why should it be improved?

[KateLex]

да всё нормально, система прекрасна, живая. Люди голосуют на блокчейне, и результаты каждые сутки изменяются. это очень приятно. Это хороший шаг навстречу сообществу. Спасибо Саша

[Angry_Panda_ROAR]

Some reasons are explained in previous posts. Also, if you look the wealth distribution you will notice that few addresses own most of the WCT tokens.

This means also that if you hold 2,500,000 WCT you can prevent the obtainment of 4 stars for any project, even against a project that hypothetically holds 7,500,000 WCT.

[expire76]

I also agree, that to be able to vote you must hold a token is stupid idea. And if you have more tokens, more power you have, this is even more stupid. This is a desperate step to save WCT token. Personaly I think WCT is useless and it was created with the purpose of rewarding community and to test new asset funcionality within the ecosystem. And now to keep it alive, you are trying to come with ideas how WCT can be utilized. Thats my feeling. I would suggest to destroy WCT token in some exchange rate with Waves or Vostok…But back to the topic on voting. I think the issue of voting is in its structure, that everyone has only 1 vote. This concept is old and wrong. Karel Janecek developed a new system, where everyone has more votes. 2 positive and 1 negative vote. You can vote in both directions and this will result in much democratic voting. He also mathematically proved this. His method is already applied in the world, for example in voting for the city of New York. Detailed algorithm can be found here https://www.ih21.org/en/voting-method-for-everyone

So I think this is the best way to vote, not to hold a token…

[Whale]

Why should it be improved? I don’t get it

[MrTurtle]

Look to the top wct wallet

[scudo.altervista.org]

D21 seems very interesting, I entered the site and read the topic, but I was not able to go into the subject further.
I would like to know the exact procedure of the vote, I myself am looking for a voting system for my project.

[MillacuraFA]

ewarding community and to test new asset funcionality within the ecosystem. And now to keep it alive, you are trying to come with ideas how WCT can be utilized. Thats my feeling. I would suggest to destroy WCT token in some exchange rate with Waves or Vostok…But back to the topic on voting. I think the issue of voting is in its structure, that everyone has only 1 vote. This concept is old and wrong. Karel Janecek developed a new system, where everyone has more votes. 2 positive and 1 negative vote. You can vote in both directions and this will result in much democratic voting. He also mathematically proved this. His method is already applied in the world, for example in voting for the city of New York. Detailed

The problem with voting considering the number of addressess (1 vote = 1 address) is that any “whale” can distribute its wealth into multiple addresses and in that way manipulate the voting system anyway.

What is even crazier is that Tokens with just one vote can get on top of the list. They should all start with a qualification of 1 and start upscaling for avoiding this. Or even generate a tier system regarding the number of votes.

[MillacuraFA]

I also agree that the voting should be done using Waves, there is no need for a specific token for this. Actually would be more difficult to trick the system in that way (at least more expensive). Also, voting can be implemented with Waves by paying only the transaction fee.

There is no more than economic interest in pumping WCT.

[Angry_Panda_ROAR]

I also agree that the voting should be done using Waves, there is no need for a specific token for this.

I agree about no reasons of a specific token just to vote. However I still think that it’s better to consider the token rating more as a customer feedback on a product, and therefore my opinion is that everyone should be able to vote only for the tokens in which it has invested, for the reasons I explained in the posts above.

The problem with voting considering the number of addressess (1 vote = 1 address) is that any “whale” can distribute its wealth into multiple addresses and in that way manipulate the voting system anyway.

Yes, maybe a whale could split his portfolio into several or more addresses, but i doubt he will split it into thousands/millions addresses just to vote! And in any case cheating would become more complicated if allowing 1 vote per address and/or, maybe, with a minimum amount of tokens, % of total supply or value.