In fact, some people don't care about Governance or the future of the community, they just want to produce, get their rewards and cash out. And there's no problem with that.
Other people want to keep their tokens in the community, but they don't care much about the future, and believe there are people more interested who will make the right decision.
There are those interested in the future of the community and even if they don't have many tokens they are always interacting and looking for solutions for the future.
And there are investors. People who have decided to put their money in search of returns and for that they want the best for the community (or for its rewards).
There are likely more user-type scenarios, and this will have to be figured out over time, but what we do know is that whether we like it or not, everyone has some weight in the community.
And seeking the equivalence of these weights, I believe that the solution for governance is to find the Pob Factor.
Who is the most valuable to the community, the top 1 stake or the top 1 commentator?
Who is more important, someone who generates engagement or someone who brings good content?
I believe that all these parameters must be put on the table when we are going to define the power of governance, after all, regardless of importance, all these users are under the same roof.
SteemMonsters defined that 14 variables would be considered so that the user has the token that will give him the power to define the future of the community.
Each variable has its value, as we can see in the image below.
Along the same lines, what variables would we have in POB to define the importance of the user for the future of the community?
I believe we can find that common denominator. Currently our top 1 stake is @proofofbrainio, but what good would all its accumulation be if there were no posts and comments to be voted on?
Should the community's top 1 comments be worth equivalent to it? Or close?
To qualify comments we can use the @amr008 system, I believe it is an excellent and reliable way.
I don't know how to answer, but I believe he has some value.
Therefore, I suggest and I am open to editing the table below according to the comments, that we should consider the weight of the vote for each category. Help me make this draft into something definitive. Comment here, or create publications expressing your opinions about this idea.
|Stakeholders||x points per staked pob|
|Comments||x points for comment quality|
|Publishers||x points for publication quality|
This table can have several other variables that would define points for the user.
These points will then serve to vote and define the direction of the community.
I believe that these points should not have an option to be purchased as was the case with SPS, if the person wanted to buy they would have to purchase POB, interact with the community, or any other action that the community found valid to generate points.
We could even have a site like HiveBuzz where a ranking is kept up to date with the points that each user has.
Remembering, this is a draft, 100% open to changes, comment below on how to improve.
I believe that this way we can come close to a balance in the question of how to solve the community governance problem.