pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @snufon OP 29 May \ parent \ on: What if humanity voted by burning sats Politics_And_Law
I did not know the term, interesting! The similarity lies in being able to vote in "variable amounts" , the difference is that it costs you actual money and not credits specifically created for that purpose, making it more costly to the voter
write
preview
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @398ja 29 May
Yes. The advantage of using voting tokens is that it creates a level playing field, assuming everyone receives the same number of tokens.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @snufon OP 30 May
As written elsewhere I don't think that's an advantage :^)
reply
50 sats \ 1 reply \ @398ja 30 May
I think the system you describe could be better than what we have now, but it unfairly favours wealthy countries. I find the mix of borderless money with country's elections questionable.
In the end, you may not have your country for too long...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @snufon OP 30 May
As brought up by someone else, the money could also be sent to that country's government instead of being burned. You would have even less incentive to vote on laws of other countries.
Also, I think that the huge disparity in the different countries' power/wealth are unfortunately very hard to fix by anything... This reminds me of Bitcoin criticism that goes something like "rich people can just buy a lot of btc and stay rich": yeah it's unfortunate but there's not much we can do about it, it's an issue deeper than Bitcoin/the voting system... Still a stepup IMO
reply