A brief solution to a voting problem, taking the NFT craze as an example. — How you can own Krakin’t and be a decentralized co-founder!
Introduction
We were recently flooded by the NFT hashtags from Twitter. The finale was when Mr. Elon Musk posted an ugly video with ugly music, selling it as a digital art. I understand that not all people have a good taste in music and art, but what really grinds my gears is the fact that whenever a celebrity makes a move, even as a joke, people applaud without thinking or taking things for what they are — an absurd.
Looking at the NFTs that are sold at the OpenSea application, I can tell that there is a lot of garbage and that much cheaper and a better art can be purchased from DeviantArt.
On a bright side, perhaps there is a power in this idea, and its power is what makes it so popular. After a brief investigation, it is a claim that an ownership of anything can be distributed by the means of using the smart contracts that makes this idea powerful. This concept is not new, except that it can be applied without a centralized authority. Luckily, we still have the courts that can resolve the issues that can arise from using such an approach.
As my cat jumped on my bead this morning to wake me up asking for treats, and as I was slowly trying to wake up… an idea has occurred to me. Lets un-NFT an NFT!
So if I listed Krakin’t company as a $4–6million dollar estimate, what would the fragmented NFT accomplish? Lets say, that if each investor owned a fragment of NFT, what would they do with it!?
The one thing that Krakin’t is trying to avoid is having a voting system. The reason why is simply because I have observed the bigger projects fail because the of a poor design where money implied power. So I got stuck in a loop thinking about what the investors want VS what the project needs. These two things are in conflict. Basically, deductive logic says that I need a system where the investment implies no power and (modus ponens) the power then implies no investment! … basically, what I need to implement is a contradiction, and that just won’t work. OK fine! Lets assume the negation in order to avoid the contradiction. The negation needs to be applied to every single atomic component, which in this case is a vote….
EASY! in a finite system, the negation of a single element is every other element including a null.
To cut the story short, we have solved the voting mechanism, thanks to my cat. It is most likely that someone came up with this solution before. Since all of this happened this morning (at the time of writing), I really had no time to research things that were already done, but I will do it next. Nevertheless, I am a big fan of simple solutions that work, and I might just leave it as is, focusing more on a software development and perfecting this solution.
How does the voting mechanism work?
To give the simplest explanation, try to recall the need to defragment a hard-drive using a Windows OS.
Assume that the grey squares are the dividends that have not been purchased. Now, assume that you can vote dark-green, blue, red,… like on a picture above. So, if you purchased, lets say 10,000 squares, you vote by choosing other people’s squares. So, lets assume that other people placed 1,000 on blue 8,000 on red and 2,000 on yellow. Also, lets assume that you want to vote on blue and not on yellow. Therefore, since you have bought 10,000 dividends, you can only vote 1,000 on blue then 8,000 on red and 1,000 on yellow.
In simpler terms, you vote by affirming the available votes while deciding the precedence of available options. Furthermore, you do place your vote (in this case 10,000 dividends), but only for others to affirm its strength.
Thinking about what could go wrong with this approach, it is still possible to manipulate the voting, so we could add additional mechanisms where people decide to knock-off other’s power and purchase it by some price. We can also make the price increase after each purchase.
There will be other mechanisms to implement (such as selling the dividends) and other issues to take care of. However with this approach, none of the issues are as serious as giving the ultimate power to those who purchased the most votes simply because they had the money to do it.
At the time of writing this text, I have realized that the next problem that needs to be solved is an identity problem where one person or organization can make small purchases with multiple accounts. This would make it look like the voting is done by multiple people, while in fact, it was a single entity that can manipulate the outcome. This could be solved by forming partnerships, however, it has to be processed manually. To the best of my knowledge, there is no decentralized solution for it… or not yet.
How will Krakin’t divide its company and operate by dividends ?
For some reason, I was a bit disappointed to see that every single NFT collection is a token on OpenSea. I was hoping to see the NFT as one token where all the digital files are registered. For this reason, we will make a statement with the public notary (only to respect the law and the way it operates), scan it in a digital format, and take the digital file checksum. This checksum will then be inserted into a contract, and file shared as an open-source.
We will most-likely not tokenize the contract, however, we can sell the dividends on the OpenSea and/or create our own application for selling the dividends.
As previously mentioned, the company can operate by voting, why we will use the transparency to tell the people why certain options were open to voting and why the others were not. In the beginning the voting options will be decided by the Krakin’t team, while we will work slowly to decentralize this component too and becoming a true decentralized organization.
