New internet governance structures — a case for the Metaverses.
What mechanism civilization will use within our metaverses to make these evolving adjustments? What governance structure should the Metaverse use? And with such a tragic failure in democracy in recent years, is this really the best way to move forward? A voting mechanism is absolutely necessary to vote for everyone in the Metaverse.
We do not want to live in a technocratic “monarchy” dominated by the founders of the companies that built and maintained them. Futarchy offers the nature of participatory democracy, but can make finer-grained decisions from the beginning, based on various well-being metrics that enable the establishment of an economic “north.”
The token-based structure of the Metaverse allows incentives to consciously participate in important topics. This means that the integration of tokens will reduce voting costs to zero, (The costs of creating a “data-driven democracy” are high ) and using market forecasts will result in the most favorable forecast results (ie, results that mean improved welfare indexes) and question your true opinion. People who create incentives to throw and not fall into ideological or irrational discussions. According to the motto, the futuristic form of government by economist Robin Hanson: “vote values, but bet beliefs”.
In this system, instead of voting on whether to implement a particular policy, individuals vote on indicators to determine the performance of their country (or charity or business) and use predictive markets to optimize.
Let’s see what Futarchy is!
Futarchy is a governance model that combines the best of prediction markets and traditional democracy. It is based on the idea that instead of making decisions ourselves, we should lean on the wisdom of the crowd, which is accessed through prediction markets. In futarchy, those who want to make a decision have to write a proposal, which is then sent to a prediction market for evaluation. The market then returns a prediction of the outcome of the decision, and the decision maker goes with the outcome that is most favorable.
The first futarchy experiment was conducted in 2016 by the government of part of Colorado. The legislature wanted to build a new school, but was having a hard time deciding where exactly to build it. So they sent out a futarchy proposal, asking the market to predict where the school would be the most beneficial. The market returned a prediction that the school would be the most beneficial in a particular area, and the legislature went with that decision.
Another example of futarchy is data mining. Rather than having a person or a small group of people make decisions, you can send a futarchy proposal to the market, asking it to predict the future outcome of a decision. The decision maker then goes with the outcome that the market returns with the highest probability.
While such a system is still in its infancy, futarchy has the potential to be a powerful tool for improving the decision-making process. While the system does have its shortcomings, such as the need for the market to be well-informed and for the market to reflect the views of society as a whole, futarchy has the potential to improve the efficiency and transparency of our decision-making process.
