Please describe your proposed solution.
We propose to conduct a large-scale study with the modeling of platform actors and their relationships.
We are going to describe the existing and possible roles on Cardano platform, visualise them, simulate them in AnyLogic (ABM), determine the moments when the best and worst decisions are made, how biases can be curtailed. Based on this, we will build a more balanced model of the Cardano ecosystem, which does not allow to ignore the subjects of voting.
There are many solutions, our task is simply to understand which of them are good, and which only seem to be so. DeReps can be trained, unscrupulous can be filtered out. It is possible to build a system where evaluators can gain credibility, from the ability to vote only for themselves, to the ability to send thousands of other people's votes, but only when they have already proven their integrity.
We oppose temporary and easily bypassed solutions.
Please describe how your proposed solution will address the Challenge that you have submitted it in.
As stated in the challenge, Cardano has a big problem with the correctness of the evaluation of proposals.
In systems that depend on complex community behavior, there are big problems, for example, with the assessment of the competence of auditors and fraud with votes.
For example, in academic science, the standard indicator of a scientist's competence is the number of citations. However, it is not uncommon for a scientist to self-reference to increase their citation rate, or when negative references by critics to a particular article still give the scientist a reputation boost.
To avoid this, we need a rigorous model that describes the roles offered by the system, exploring the possibilities for cheating with them. We need to consider alternative options, such as being able to swap auditors and proposers on a regular basis, giving them commensurate resources.
What are the main risks that could prevent you from delivering the project successfully and please explain how you will mitigate each risk?
We are concerned about the complexity in managing both large-scale research and in managing the execution of their intended development path.
The obvious thing is that not every study of a problem gives a complete picture of the path to its solution. Perhaps, however, understanding the target system will allow the Cardano community to see better voting options.
At least some of our team are worried that such an unflattering review of the current voting system in Cardano will cause a backlash among those in charge. If that's the case, we'd love it if our critique encourages you to take a fresh look at the new voting features for this platform.