However, I’m not sure what sorts of collusion you’re worried about for this round (but haven’t though much about it)?
My understanding is that collusion in QV looks like:
1. People hijacking what bills get put up for vote in order to bankrupt people who want to veto the bill
2. People splitting their funding contributions across multiple fake identities in order to extract more subsidies
3. People coordinating their votes with others (because rather than me buying x votes it’s cheaper that I only buy x-y and “pay for that” by spending money on someone else’s preferences)
1 and 2 won’t be a problem for the review since you have a set number of voters with known identities, as well as a set number of posts to vote on. So I presume you’re worried about vote trading as in 3?
Robin Hanson makes a similar point here.
However, I’m not sure what sorts of collusion you’re worried about for this round (but haven’t though much about it)?
My understanding is that collusion in QV looks like:
1. People hijacking what bills get put up for vote in order to bankrupt people who want to veto the bill
2. People splitting their funding contributions across multiple fake identities in order to extract more subsidies
3. People coordinating their votes with others (because rather than me buying x votes it’s cheaper that I only buy x-y and “pay for that” by spending money on someone else’s preferences)
1 and 2 won’t be a problem for the review since you have a set number of voters with known identities, as well as a set number of posts to vote on. So I presume you’re worried about vote trading as in 3?