BUIP081: (closed) Unambiguous definition of 1 year membership period

torusJKL

Active Member
Nov 30, 2016
497
1,156
BUIP081: Unambiguous definition of 1 year membership period
Submitted on 26th November 2017 by torusJKL

Motivation
The Bitcion Unlimited defines members as someone who has been accepted and has voted at least once during the last 1 year.

Because the voting ballet is usually open over multiple days a vote can be casted at the beginning or at the end of the time frame.

This in turn makes the "voted within the last 1 year" definition ambiguous as one could count from the date the member voted or the date the ballot was closed.
It incentivizes members to vote last minute to extend their period as far as possible. And it could punish a member who voted early.

Objectives
This BUIP wants to change the wording such that the calculation is unambiguous and there is no incentive to vote at the last minute.

Solution
Instead of using the date of the individual member vote we will use the close date of the ballot in which the user has voted last.

E.g. a ballot that was running from 01.12.2017 - 05.12.2017 and in which the member has voted on 02.12.2017 would be extend the membership until 04.12.2018 (1 year after the ballot was closed),

Task
Under Article 2, II the following member definition

Member: an individual who is invited (by BUIP) to join the Confederation, signs this document, and has joined or voted within the last 1 year. Non-publicly identified members may have restricted voting or other restrictions as determined by subsequent BUIPs - this measure may be needed to restrict duplicate accounts.

will be replaced with the following new text

Member: an individual who is invited (by BUIP) to join the Confederation, signs this document, and has joined or voted within the last 1 year (in both cases the closing date of the ballot in which the member has joined or voted is used for the cut off calculation). Non-publicly identified members may have restricted voting or other restrictions as determined by subsequent BUIPs - this measure may be needed to restrict duplicate accounts.
 

Windowly

Active Member
Dec 10, 2015
157
385
I think even if this doesn't pass the responsible officers can (and probably want to) interpret this somewhat ambiguous clause in a way that is most beneficial to members.