A suggestion for game theory incentives' when communication exists

[priyanshujoshi1]

Just recently I have used the “CHATGPT AI” made by “OPENAI” for asking my personal queries, there I had asked it about whether there is a Schelling point version which acts during communication there it said that there is one which is called “Focal Point” (this confused me because if you search on Wikipedia it uses the term “Focal Point” and Schelling Point synonymously, so I asked the “CHATGPT AI” about this and it said that they are different concepts but people may have used them synonymously because of their similarities),

I had asked the “AI” about this because I personally wanted a system of where a randomly selected panel of people which can communicate with each other make policies or other decisions, I wanted this because we can use this mechanism for Dao Governance, or even Real-World Governance such as for making policies or for choosing the agenda,

Though there is already the concept of “Sortition” where we randomly selected representative panel for making decisions,
I didn’t like that system very much because of the criteria for representation, because it not only makes the selection process a bit more complex but also make the panels to be large as we require them to be representative,

In my opinion this especially becomes difficult when we use the concept of “Multi-body Sortition” proposed by “Bouricius”,
though I prefer the other model proposed by “SORA” called “SORA PARLIAMENT”,

If only we could design a system of incentives designed reaching a “FOCAL POINT” when parties can communicate (Since we already have the kleros “SCHELLING POINT” incentive mechanism, in my opinion this system probably will be extremely useful).

Just imagine a kleros Dapp just like we have Curate, Escrow, etc., where we implement this system we will change kleros completely and it probably will revolutionize the “DAO Governance” and even “Real-world Governance” as well and etc.,
the system can even be used for making appointments, including using “STAR VOTING” and its variants for this, it can also be used for making a “Legislative Committee” or an “Executive Committee” and etc.

This system mixed with kleros’ Arbitration Service can lead to a full-fledged Governance system and probably will make a completely Decentralized Governance System.

I request the Kleros team and the community to make/develop/propose a system for implementing this system where a randomly selected jurors who can communicate are incentivized for achieving this “FOCAL POINT” game theory concept which exists during when communication exists.

THANK YOU

[William]

These are interesting questions. The way that Schelling points is used in Kleros has been designed with the specific application of dispute resolution in mind, rather than use in governance; though it is potentially possible that some of these ideas could be applied in the design of governance systems as well. (We do indeed generally use the terms Schelling point and focal point synonymously, but others may make subtle distinctions between them.) One application of Kleros that we have thought about that is related to governance is using Kleros as a sort of supreme court where decisions can be made on whether of not given DAO proposals violate the DAO’s constitution. See this talk for more information on that idea. That is already sort of in the spirit of multi-body sortition in that sortition is being used to draw a panel for this one specific governance role of constitutional review of proposals.

We have also thought a lot about the ways that communication and the flow of information interact with the Schelling points in Kleros. See this talk for some of my ideas on this subject. An important observation that we have made is on how appeals in Kleros interact with communication. Jurors can communicate with other jurors in their round, but ultimately their goal is to be coherent with the community’s decision after potential appeals. So if there is an appeal, the final decision may be made by completely different jurors who one can’t really effectively communicate with because they haven’t been selected yet. Thus jurors are forced to balance any communication they have with the other jurors in a given round with how they think the broader community would rule in case of appeal.

The appeal process is also how Kleros balances starting with small panels of jurors to avoid overly duplicating peoples’ effort in analyzing cases with the desire to have representative panels. An initial panel may not be representative, but if there are appeals larger and larger panels are drawn that ultimately will be more representative. You mention that you find it problematic that the panels in multi-body sortition need to be large to be representative, so maybe there is some way one can do something similar to the Kleros appeal process to start with small panels whose results can be reviewed in case they are too far out of line with what the community wants.