Advantages of direct democracy (with veto power)
- makes the game most closely align with the immediate wishes of the playerbase
- allows for the greatest throughput of new features
- gives the playerbase the greatest sense of ownership
Disadvantages of direct democracy
- has no term vision for the game
- results in fragmented features
- results in conflicting features
- results in game design by influencers, not experts
- has no good way to ensure healthy balance (think four year old’s candy for dinner)
- allows tyranny by majority
Advantages of representative democracy
- makes the game align with the immediate wishes of the playerbase
- gives the playerbase sense of ownership
- has a medium term vision for the game
Disadvantages of representative democracy
- has no long-term vision for the game
- results in long-term fragmented features
- each election will result in a new vision
- risks being run by influencers, not experts
- people are elected by their popularity and charisma, not competency
- risks conflicting interests
- out-of-game conflict of interests: shorting the game, pump and dump, etc.
- in-game conflict of interests: “we’re not here to ruin the game, we’re here to ruin your game”
- encourages flashy populism
Advantages of autocracy (with vote of no confidence)
- has a long-term vision
- reduced risk of conflicting interests
- highest chance of decisions by experts over influencers
- highest chance of making a great game
- Stability in quality
Disadvantages of autocracy
- has no consistently good recovery from vote of no confidence
- has the greatest risk of out-of-touch decisions
- gives the playerbase the least sense of ownership
Of all these considerations, making a good game is the most important. In real life, moving is difficult or impossible; people are stuck in mediocre countries regardless of their political system. In the online world, moving is easy and expected; people will leave for the new and flash game unless ours is exceptionally good. For that reason, a mediocre game is almost as bad as a bad game. Democratic systems may prevent us from making really bad decisions, but they’ll also prevent us from becoming the Singapore of video games. To join the exclusive ranks of MMOs that keep growing after launch, we need a game design team with competence and a long-term plan—which is only possible through autocracy. To ensure that greedy bureaucrats can’t do a hostile takeover once the game is successful, we need checks and balances from the players.
My proposal to achieve this:
- Heimdall’s governance tokens and assets are implemented.
- There is a constitution with special rules that are difficult to change, such as what is described below.
- The game’s authority is a council of twelve members.
- that was the number of apostles
- it’s enough to have differing perspectives
- few enough to where everyone can know each other on a personal level
- The council members must provide a large amount of governance tokens as collateral which are returned to them a year after retirement. Supporting players can contribute to the collateral.
- governance tokens’ value reflect the health of the game
- council members are incentivized to keep the game healthy to improve the value of their collateral
- governance tokens can be slashed as punishment
- Amending the constitution requires full council support and a high threshold of the playerbase
This is to give the council a stake in the game’s health:
- If the council is unanimous, they can implement any that isn’t blocked by the constitution immediately.
- If the council has a disagreement or there are fewer than twelve council members in good standing, the people will vote on the topic with a threshold inverse to the remaining council members’ yes votes. (four vote yes, 66.7% threshold to pass; ten vote yes, 16.7% threshold to pass).
- If a council member wishes to retire, he can nominate his replacement. That replacement has to be voted in with the above rules.
- If the nominee fails the vote, the nominating council member has his tokens slashed.
- To give governance tokens value and to give players agency, players can initiate two types of votes, in addition to the tie-breaker mechanic above:
- players can make a no confidence vote for one or more council members with a high threshold for passing. Creating a no confidence requires governance tokens as collateral which are lost if the vote fails.
- players can make a proposal that the council is forced to address if it passes a medium threshold
- If the council fails to address a proposal, their tokens are slashed.
- If a vote of no confidence passes, anyone on the council can nominate the replacements with the rules above.
- If no council members remain, a liquid democracy election will decide new council.
- Citadel employees start on the council.
The expected outcome is that smart people who have the the game’s best interest in mind will be on the council. They’re not expected to the experts in any one area. Their job is to stamp proposals from their advisors and experts into law. Their incentives are aligned with the game. They will be able to work like leadership in a normal video game company and make fast decisions when necessary. Unlike normal video companies, they have a strong incentive not to ruin the game. If they step down because they expect the game to be ruined within a year, the next council members can change course to avoid it. If they’re found to be incompetent or evil, they can easily be replaced. The transition of power is stable as long as the majority of the council has the game’s interest at heart. Council members should never be receive a vote of no confidence. If a council member is unpopular enough to be at risk, he ought to step down to avoid having his tokens slashed.