I prefer the name “petition”, because that evokes the permissionless or self-initiated quality of it. This encourages experimenting with the format and policy, rather than it needing to come from an authority. So I hope we keep these qualities whatever we try.
I agree with @tromer’s trilemma. Although this thread is about coin-weighted and permissionless petitions, I don’t think this has to be plutocratic, especially if it’s just one signal in the overall decision input. With some kind of stake polling mechanism, we’d have some input mechanism from roughly all three corners.
Those users just passing through ZEC to make transactions may not be affected much by price. But those who are “long zec” are affected by each other in the market. So, as with miners, it makes sense to provide them some voice mechanism. Maybe it should only be weighted heavily if the turnout represents a significant fraction of the overall supply of coins.
We should make this voice mechanism iteratively better, turnout% being an important metric. It would be nice to take a gradual path towards a futarchy mechanism like in Vitalik’s post collusion.html, but I think that would ultimately need a defi science project. The use of futarchy or coin petitions here is not so much like the counterexample in Vitalik’s post, where it’s overextended for automatic curation of permissionlessly-created proposals, so I think we should keep some experiment open.
Another shortish term, less sciencey, but still difficult step is to ask exchanges or custodians to participate in some such mechanism and ideally extend the option of choosing or delegating to their users. These are whales and yet also likely to comprise a large number of users.