dGov on Clubhouse: A Quick Review of Decentralized Governance, Taiwan, and Collective Intelligence

I had a pretty powerful experience yesterday. I had Divya Siddarth of RadicalXChange in a Decentralized Governance room on Clubhouse, an invite-only, conversation-only audio app that has recently seen explosive growth. I have been blown away by the sheer volume of incredible changemakers from such a wide variety of efforts, from local to governmental and even supernational.

  • Used Pol.is, a machine-learning powered system for listening to a wide range of people.
  • Pol.is lets you share short (<140 characters) text statements that are semi-randomly sent to others to vote on with one of three options — agree, disagree or pass; because unlike most social media, you cannot respond, it successfully avoided the trap of polarization.
  • Many more highlights. If you don’t have time to read Divya’s full article, she did an excellent breakdown in a Twitter thread, here.
  • Instead of voting for one person to make all decisions for you, imagine you could vote on ten different issues and were given a hundred credits to express your preferences. That would more fairly represent your wishes than someone else making all of those decisions for you. The problem with the credit model is that if you put all ten of your votes on one issue, you could overweight it. Instead, quadratic voting only counts the square root of the number of votes you add. You can express that you care only about one issue, but you would only be able to add a little over three votes in this example.
  • Where this is notably used is GitHub, which creates a matching fund — $100,000 for example — that it will distribute to one of a few projects, based on to which ones people choose to donate money. The project that gets the greatest amount of the matching fund isn’t the one that gets the most amount of money from individuals. It’s the one who gets money from the most individuals.*
  • We discussed using them on the small scale for groups and even co-working squads.
  • While some felt that the conversation itself was doing good by simply occurring as it opened the minds of those participating, which would inevitably ripple out, others more seasoned said these conversations have been going on for fifty years and not much has changed.
  • There was pushback that that may be true, but there is a newfound capacity for ideas to spread in the internet age.
  • We discussed power at length, including its affect on the individual; this was paired with a discussion of private interest.
  • We talked about positive examples like the Nordic countries and South Korea, but it was pointed out that those are homogenous nations.
  • The homogeneity point was pushed back against, saying that current democratic mechanisms are designed to listen to and represent the will of the people and that these tools only do that better.
  • We discussed crypto not as a breakthrough in economics, but as a breakthrough in crafting society.
  • We discussed that people’s ability to engage civically is hamstrung by their “time poverty.”
  • This, of course, could not be coercive — it would have to be so inspiring and compelling that it spread on its own.
  • We talked about indigenous cultures’ methods of using collective intelligence and decentralized governance.
  • We talked about the need for broader education, better incentive structures, and heightened leadership.
  • We talked about how Colorado was testing quadratic voting in some capacity with the help of RadicalXChange.
  • We talked about how RXC is actively seeking to work with more governments to test and incorporate these amazing mechanisms

Martial Artist, Philosopher, Writer

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store