It's quite disappointing that Vitalik keeps pushing something that fundamentally doesn't work in a decentralized setting.
The proposed mechanism "assumes" identity, otherwise the mechanism is gamed easily. Which is what has been happening.
The proposed mechanism "assumes" identity, otherwise the mechanism is gamed easily. Which is what has been happening.
But people that have experience building decentralized protocols will tell you that it's a very hard problem to solve, for many reasons.
This is an engineering community, so I believe that it's important to focus on things that exist today. Not on speculative solutions.
This post (also, coincidentally by Vitalik) talks about different levels of collusion (from unsophisticated to sophisticated) https://vitalik.ca/general/2019/04/03/collusion.html
Gitcoin's approach thus far has been to stop collusion from unsophisticated actors, then progressively get more organized (as more money gets involved, and as we learn from each round) about stopping collusion from more sophisticated actors.
This thread talks about some collusion that we founnd in Round 5. https://twitter.com/owocki/status/1250097472694702080
I think a more important question is "are the round results valid?" Vitalik goes into this in his post - As Vitalik notes in his post, we are certainly reaching the limits of our existing identity framework as more money/users get involved.
Identity networks are a chicken and egg problem. My view is that Gitcoin being one of the first widely/actively used Ethereum products (https://gitcoin.co/results) we have a unique opportunity (and challenge/responsibility honestly) to bootstrap a DID network.
Here's some incremental improvements were gonna make in round 6: Identity - https://github.com/gitcoinco/web/issues/6549 Collusion - https://github.com/gitcoinco/web/issues/6548
Quadratic funding allocates a pool of funds based on the number of unique donors a project has.
The proposed solution will exclude a very significant portion of potential contributors. Vitalik hints politely on that by saying that there are trade-offs between security and inclusiveness...