3 ms·
There's also all the academic literature of Weyl et al. that makes the basis of the book, but I've found that to be less accessible [1]. references: - 1: http
by timdaub 5y ago
There's also all the academic literature of Weyl et al. that makes the basis of the book, but I've found that to be less accessible [1].
references:
- 1: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20181002 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20181002
- iainmerrick 5y agoHaving done a bit more reading, I’m increasingly convinced QV has very narrow application rather than being a general voting scheme, and may simply be a vacuous idea. I guess I need to dig into the proof to see what is actually claimed (versus loosely extrapolated). The use of QV in voting scenarios where you have 100 tokens to split among alternatives seems completely motiveless, beyond “QV is great because there’s a mathematical proof.” But a proof of what? Not a proof of anything relating to that voting scheme, as far as I can see.