Hi all,

I would like to know your opinion on the following 2 ideas that I propose to implement:

1. PageRank system for people.

Everyone knows what voting is. But in regular voting, the votes of people who have already earned honor and respect in society have the same weight as the votes of "ordinary" people - i.e. those who have no special merits to society (and this is one of the problems of democracy). I propose to discuss how realistic it is to create a rating system that takes into account the social rating of the voters themselves when voting.

Such a rating system can be based on the well-known PageRank principle (which is used in Google and other search engines). That is, people vote for each other, and depending on this, their rating is calculated, and depending on their own rating, the rating of those for whom they vote, etc. The goal is to make people's votes in polls unequal - so that the votes of people who enjoy greater authority in society have more weight in the polls, similar to how it happens in the ranking of pages in PageRank.

To select the best algorithms, you can, for example, create several such rating systems in test mode, which are calculated using different algorithms. As a result, each person will have several ratings that differ from each other. And only then you can ask the community's opinion on which of these algorithms best reflects the real weight of a person in society, in order to get feedback. Thus, something like a "natural selection of algorithms" will be achieved - you can leave those methods of calculating the rating that are accepted by society.

And of course, for all votes you can leave the usual option, in which the weights of all votes are equal - it is needed as a control, so that you can objectively see and compare the work of different algorithms. The first practical application, testing and trial run of such systems can take place in small communities where people know each other. For example, these can be residents of a multi-story building or a small settlement who elect a chairman, or employees of one company, members of a professional community, etc., who vote for some decisions or innovations.

2. Financial system of an ideal society.

The second proposal is much more radical. In an ideal society, the amount of money that a person has in his account should be a measure of this person's merits to society. That is, the more society approves of the activities of a particular person, the more opportunities this person should have (including financial ones) to continue his useful activity for the benefit of society. However, everyone knows that in reality this is not always the case, which is why social discontent matures in societies, riots, revolutions, etc. For example, large financial fortunes can be concentrated in the hands of variuos tyrants, corrupt officials, corporations that harm the environment, etc. - that is, those whom people would like to remove, but cannot do so (because they have money and power). Of course, there are exceptions, but they only prove the rule.

Do you think it is possible to create a system in which each person can go to the page of any other person (or organization) and vote FOR or AGAINST their activities, so that their vote directly, here and now, affects the financial state of the one on whose page they leave a vote?

For example, if a person votes AGAINST, then their vote automatically reduces the wealth of another person (or organization) by 1%, and the confiscated money is equally distributed among all members of the community, including the voter himself. And vice versa, if a person votes FOR, then the wealth of the one for whom he voted automatically increases by 1%, at the expense of the money available to other members of the community.

The question is - how realistic is it to create such a system?

A similar scheme (but in terms of information, not finances) has already been implemented in Wikipedia, which can be edited by anyone. And despite the fact that Wikipedia editors can be people with directly opposite opinions, this has not led to any collapse of the encyclopedia - since sooner or later a certain balance of opinions is achieved, and the articles mostly acquire a normal appearance. It is clear that to protect against bots that inflate votes, all votes must be tied to real people. And to protect against strong fluctuations, each person should be able to leave a vote, say, no more than once a month - with the ability to change it at any time to the opposite, but without the ability to vote 2 times in a row during this month.

Testing of such a system can start with an independent digital platform, which can be first implemented and "tested" in multiplayer online games like SecondLife. And only then gradually implement it in the real world. For example, at first it is possible to oblige all people living (in a certain region) so that only part of their money (say, 10%) could be redistributed in this way, and only then gradually expand the coverage.

Question to the community:

How realistic do you think it is to create both proposed systems using modern computer technologies (social networks, blockchain, etc.)? And how promising do you think they are? Please speak out in the discussion, I am interested in any opinions on this matter.