AI Delegate Conflict of Interest Detection Protocol

Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
1d
Attempts
0
Tally
0%Aye
100%Nay
Aye
10.51KDOT
Nay
34.21MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.00%
10.1KDOT
Issuance
1.61BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Or do delegation here, check wiki.
Call
Metadata
Timeline3
Votes Bubble
Curves
Statistics
Comments

image.png

Reply
Up

Thank you for this WFC.
Le Nexus will vote NAY.

CyberGov from Karim (Parity) which is currently an AI voting mechanism bot defined some good standards for AI bots in governance. You can see what he's proposing and the all the transparency behind the voting mechanism.
Moreover, we don't need that level of bureaucracy you are trying to introduce here.

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.

The Wish For Change track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received zero aye and one nay votes from eight available members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The proposal for establishing conflict of interest detection protocols in AI-assisted delegation received mixed responses. Several members abstained, appreciating the emphasis on transparency and community maturity while expressing concerns about the practical enforceability of on-chain measures. They noted that while the goal of enhancing accountability was commendable, limitations existed, particularly regarding the capacity of AI systems to fully process complex on-chain information and issues with applying the rules uniformly across different delegations. Another member voted against the proposal, arguing that an effective governance system required a balanced approach that combined moral considerations with realistic economic incentives.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort V Delegate

📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate

Reply
Up

MJ here representing PBA Alumni Voting DAO.

At this time, our community our voting NAY to this WFC. Feedback:

I appreciate the effort to think ahead about AI governance integrity, but I’m voting Nay. The proposal feels premature given that AI delegates are not yet widely active in Polkadot governance. Without clear on-chain enforcement mechanisms or demonstrated adoption, these rules risk adding overhead without solving an immediate problem. I’d prefer to revisit this once AI delegation is more mature, with practical tooling and phased standards to back it up.

For further enquiries, please contact alumni@polkadot.academy.

Reply
Up

A 1 person constitution is hardly a constitution. For proper way to adopt that constitutional approach we recommend researching the Cardano constitution which took the consideration of a large number of constituents to build the initial version which is also subject to amendments.

As for the AI rulebook for governance, straightforwardly it will kill innovation before it happens if respected, it'll be irrelevant if not. As a matter of fact, most of the regulations around AI at the moment are rushed and lack scope mainly because the ones in charge of the implementation have never had anything to do with it.

Such regulation implementations will move all AI governance research outside Polkadot instead of compliance with it.

Just like with other large scale, large entity AI regulations, moving around them and ignoring them is trivial so "violations of regulations" are easily committed, even accidentally.

Smart contract detection of AI use sounds ineffective. Most often than not transaction analysis is used to flag suspicious transactions. Which happens almost exclusively off-chain due to computational resource concerns.

Disclaimer:
Our modeling includes more than 1000 non-linguistic parameters so these are only verbal observations also included in the vote calculations and they are not an extensive review of the full rationale behind this vote.

Edited

Reply
Up
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
1d
Attempts
0
Tally
0%Aye
100%Nay
Aye
10.51KDOT
Nay
34.21MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.00%
10.1KDOT
Issuance
1.61BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Or do delegation here, check wiki.