Block chain on-chain treatment method and device, electronic equipment and storage medium

Abstract

The invention provides a block chain on-chain governance method and device, electronic equipment and a storage medium, and the method comprises the steps: obtaining the reputation of each governor in a community; according to the reputation of each governor, performing weighted evaluation on the first round of voting of each governor on the proposal to obtain a first weighted voting value of each governor; determining a first voting result of the first round of voting according to all the first weighted voting values; according to the reputation of each governor, performing weighted evaluation on a second round of voting of each governor on the proposal to obtain a second weighted voting value of each governor; determining a second voting result of a second round of voting according to all the second weighted voting values; and determining a final voting result based on the first voting result and the second voting result. According to the invention, the problem that the voting weight is difficult to dynamically adjust and is easy to control by large households in the prior art, so that the governance decision quality is influenced is solved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of blockchain technology, and in particular to a blockchain on-chain governance method and apparatus, electronic device and storage medium. Background Technology

[0002] As a component of blockchain governance, governance methods play a crucial role in Distributed Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), network community self-governance, distributed decision-making, and the implementation and operation of systems. In Web3.0 and the metaverse, they also possess significant social attributes, making them a core issue within blockchain systems. Blockchain governance methods are primarily categorized into on-chain governance and off-chain governance.

[0003] The stakeholders in on-chain governance include: blockchain developers, nodes, users, and token holders (specific users / nodes).

[0004] In existing blockchain on-chain governance, tokens are generally used as the threshold for voting rights. Nodes / users without tokens do not have voting rights and therefore lack on-chain governance permissions. On-chain governance typically uses smart contracts as its carrier. Blockchain developers (or a dedicated distributed autonomous committee) propose a topic from top to bottom. After review and approval, and deemed valuable, the topic is transformed into a public draft for token-holding autonomous participants to participate in decision-making. Generally, one token corresponds to one vote. When the majority of votes from autonomous participants reaches an overwhelming percentage, the decision is passed and subsequently deployed on the blockchain.

[0005] Using tokens as a threshold for voting rights can reduce the degree of bias in voting results to some extent, but it also limits / eliminates the participation of a large number of potential impartial and autonomous participants, making the voting results only represent the will and thoughts of a portion of the population. Furthermore, this could potentially backfire: users without voting rights might intentionally act maliciously, resisting and undermining the results of on-chain governance. As mentioned above, current on-chain governance technologies only focus on the token as a medium, leading to the following problems:

[0006] While traditional on-chain governance methods can reach a conclusion more quickly through a single vote, a single vote is insufficient to counter collective decision-making and Sybil attacks, potentially leading to an unjust governance outcome. Furthermore, traditional on-chain governance is susceptible to election fraud, such as vote buying. Therefore, current blockchain governance suffers from the following main problems: voting weights are difficult to adjust dynamically, making them vulnerable to manipulation by large holders, which in turn affects the quality of governance decisions. Summary of the Invention

[0007] This application provides a blockchain on-chain governance method and apparatus, electronic device and storage medium to solve at least one technical problem existing in related technologies.

[0008] According to one aspect of the embodiments of this application, a blockchain on-chain governance method is provided, comprising:

[0009] Gain credibility with each administrator within the community;

[0010] The first round of voting by each governor on the proposal is weighted according to the reputation of each governor to obtain the first weighted vote value of each governor, wherein the first round of voting is used to indicate whether the governor approves or disapproves of the proposal;

[0011] The first voting result of the first round of voting is determined based on all the first weighted voting values;

[0012] The second-round votes of each governor on the proposal are weighted according to the reputation of each governor to obtain a second weighted vote value for each governor, wherein the second-round vote is used to indicate the degree of satisfaction with the proposal;

[0013] The second voting result of the second round of voting is determined based on all the second weighted voting values;

[0014] The final voting result is determined based on the first and second voting results.

[0015] Optionally, as described above, before obtaining the reputation of each administrator within the community, the method further includes:

[0016] A verification request is initiated to the target address that uniquely corresponds to the entity identity of the administrator, so that the target address requests the verifiable credential corresponding to the entity identity from the verifiable credential issuer, and the verifiable credential issuer generates the target verifiable credential after verifying the real entity identity with the identity repository of the target address, wherein the target verifiable credential includes: the entity identity information;

[0017] If the target verifiable credentials meet the preset approval requirements, the target address is allowed to join the community, wherein the preset approval requirements include: the community does not contain the address corresponding to the entity's identity information, and the entity's identity information is genuine identity information.

[0018] Optionally, as described in the aforementioned method, obtaining the reputation of each administrator within the community includes:

[0019] Determine the historical voting accuracy, activity level, and contribution to governance activities of the corresponding administrators;

[0020] The historical voting accuracy, activity level, and contribution to governance activities are weighted and calculated according to a preset weighting method to obtain the reputation of the governance entity.

[0021] Optionally, as described above, the method further includes:

[0022] If, within a first preset time period, the ratio of all target votes cast for a target option among multiple candidate options to the total number of votes cast within the preset time period is greater than or equal to a preset ratio, then all target votes are identified as risk votes. The multiple candidate options are one of the following: all candidate options in the first round of voting, and all candidate options in the second round of voting.

[0023] All designated ballots cast within the first preset time period are locked in the second preset time period so that the designated ballots are not counted in the voting results, and the designated ballots are returned after the second preset time period.

[0024] Optionally, as described above, the method further includes:

[0025] Retrieve ballot purchase requests from the specified address;

[0026] Based on the cumulative number of ballots purchased at the specified address and the number of ballot purchase request indications, the purchase fee rate corresponding to the ballot purchase request is determined.

[0027] If the designated administrator at the designated address determines the purchase fee rate, and the designated administrator's account balance is greater than or equal to the purchase fee rate, the designated administrator's purchase record is updated, the purchase fee rate is deducted from the designated administrator's account, and the designated administrator is issued the number of transaction ballots indicated by the ballot purchase request. The transaction ballots are marked with a preset identifier, and the voting results of the transaction ballots are publicly searchable.

[0028] Optionally, as described above, the method further includes:

[0029] In the current voting phase, the administrator whose reputation meets the preset high reputation requirement is identified as the ledger keeper, so that the ledger keeper node can obtain all the voting information in the current voting phase and generate a hash tree with all the voting information as leaf nodes.

[0030] Optionally, as described above, the method further includes:

[0031] Obtain the virtual assets pledged by the administrator for a designated vote, and the designated voting result of the administrator, wherein the designated vote is either the first round of voting or the second round of voting;

[0032] If the designated voting result is determined to be a normal vote, the virtual assets will be returned to the administrator;

[0033] If it is determined that the specified voting result is a malicious vote, the virtual assets shall be confiscated in accordance with the preset confiscation requirements.

[0034] Optionally, as described above, the step of weighting the second-round votes of each governor on the proposal according to the reputation of each governor to obtain a second weighted vote value for each governor includes:

[0035] Based on the voting proportions of all administrators for each option in the second round of voting results, the distribution information of the second round of voting is determined;

[0036] The weight of each option voted by the administrator is determined based on the administrator's reputation.

[0037] The second weighted voting value is determined based on the reputation of the administrator, the distribution information of the second round of voting, and the option weights.

[0038] According to another aspect of the embodiments of this application, a blockchain on-chain governance device is also provided, comprising:

[0039] The acquisition module is used to acquire the reputation of each administrator within the community.

[0040] The first voting evaluation module is used to weight the first round of voting of each governor on the proposal according to the reputation of each governor, so as to obtain the first weighted voting value of each governor, wherein the first round of voting is used to indicate whether the governor approves or disapproves of the proposal.

[0041] The first determining module is used to determine the first voting result of the first round of voting based on all the first weighted voting values;

[0042] The second voting evaluation module is used to weight the second round of voting of each governor on the proposal according to the reputation of each governor, so as to obtain the second weighted voting value of each governor, wherein the second round of voting is used to indicate the degree of satisfaction with the proposal;

[0043] The second determining module is used to determine the second voting result of the second round of voting based on all the second weighted voting values;

[0044] The final result determination module is used to determine the final voting result based on the first voting result and the second voting result.

[0045] According to another aspect of the embodiments of this application, an electronic device is also provided, including a processor, a communication interface, a memory, and a communication bus, wherein the processor, the communication interface, and the memory communicate with each other through the communication bus; wherein the memory is used to store a computer program; and the processor is used to execute the method steps of any of the above embodiments by running the computer program stored in the memory.

[0046] According to another aspect of the embodiments of this application, a computer-readable storage medium is also provided, wherein a computer program is stored therein, wherein the computer program is configured to perform the method steps of any of the above embodiments when it is run.

[0047] In this embodiment, the following steps are taken: First, the reputation of each administrator within the community is obtained; then, a weighted evaluation is performed on each administrator's first-round vote on the proposal based on their reputation, resulting in a first weighted vote value for each administrator, where the first-round vote indicates whether they approve or disapprove of the proposal; a first voting result is determined based on all first weighted vote values; next, a weighted evaluation is performed on each administrator's second-round vote on the proposal based on their reputation, resulting in a second weighted vote value for each administrator, where the second-round vote indicates their level of satisfaction with the proposal; a second voting result is determined based on all second weighted vote values; and finally, a final voting result is determined based on the first and second voting results. Because the weighted evaluation process, namely the first and second rounds of voting, weights each governor's vote on the proposal based on their reputation, it enhances the influence of long-term contributors and reputable governors on the vote. This achieves the goal of adjusting voting weights according to the governor's reputation, making it more difficult for large holders to manipulate the voting results. This technical effect improves governance quality and solves the problem in related technologies where voting weights are difficult to dynamically adjust, easily manipulated by large holders, and thus affect the quality of governance decisions. Attached Figure Description

[0048] The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and form part of this specification, illustrate embodiments consistent with this application and, together with the description, serve to explain the principles of this application.

[0049] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of this application or the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, for those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0050] Figure 1This is a schematic diagram of the hardware environment for an optional on-chain governance method for blockchain according to an embodiment of this application;

[0051] Figure 2 This is a flowchart illustrating an optional on-chain governance method for blockchain according to an embodiment of this application;

[0052] Figure 3 This is a flowchart illustrating another optional on-chain governance method for blockchain according to an embodiment of this application;

[0053] Figure 4 This is a flowchart illustrating another optional on-chain governance method for blockchain according to an embodiment of this application;

[0054] Figure 5 This is a structural block diagram of an optional on-chain governance device for blockchain according to an embodiment of this application;

[0055] Figure 6 This is a structural block diagram of an optional electronic device according to an embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0056] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the present application, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present application, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments in the present application, all other embodiments obtained by those of ordinary skill in the art without creative effort should fall within the scope of protection of the present application.

[0057] It should be noted that the terms "first," "second," etc., in the specification, claims, and accompanying drawings of this application are used to distinguish similar objects and are not necessarily used to describe a specific order or sequence. It should be understood that such data can be interchanged where appropriate so that the embodiments of this application described herein can be implemented in orders other than those illustrated or described herein. Furthermore, the terms "comprising" and "having," and any variations thereof, are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion; for example, a process, method, system, product, or apparatus that comprises a series of steps or units is not necessarily limited to those steps or units explicitly listed, but may include other steps or units not explicitly listed or inherent to such processes, methods, products, or apparatus.

[0058] First, some nouns or terms that appear in the description of the embodiments of this application shall be interpreted as follows:

[0059] 1. A Sybil attack is a type of cyber threat in blockchain where attackers gain control of the network by creating a large number of fake identities or nodes. In blockchain technology, this type of attack attempts to undermine the decentralization and security of the system.

[0060] 2. The Verifiable Credential (VC) consists of four parts: metadata, claim, consortium blockchain regulatory certification (an optional component not found in public blockchains), and the signature of the consortium blockchain issuer. The metadata includes information such as the issuer, credential issuance date, validity period, expiration date, and the public key used for verification. The consortium blockchain regulatory certification mainly includes the hash display information uploaded to the regulator and the certification time. In scenarios where the regulator exercises issuer authority, the certification information may include both certification and signature information.

[0061] According to one aspect of the embodiments of this application, a blockchain on-chain governance method is provided. Optionally, in this embodiment, the above-described blockchain on-chain governance method can be applied to, for example... Figure 1 The hardware environment shown consists of terminal 1402 and server 1404. For example... Figure 1 As shown, server 1404 is connected to terminal 1402 via a network and can be used to provide services (such as game services, application services, etc.) to the terminal or clients installed on the terminal. A database can be set up on the server or independently of the server to provide data storage services for server 1404.

[0062] The aforementioned network may include, but is not limited to, at least one of the following: wired network, wireless network. The aforementioned wired network may include, but is not limited to, at least one of the following: wide area network, metropolitan area network, local area network. The aforementioned wireless network may include, but is not limited to, at least one of the following: Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity), Bluetooth. The terminal is not limited to PC, mobile phone, tablet computer, etc.

[0063] The blockchain on-chain governance method of this application embodiment can be executed by a server, a terminal, or both. Specifically, the execution of the blockchain on-chain governance method of this application embodiment by a terminal can also be performed by a client installed on it.

[0064] Taking the on-chain governance method of the blockchain in this embodiment as an example, Figure 2 A blockchain on-chain governance method provided in this application embodiment includes the following steps:

[0065] Step S202: Obtain the reputation of each administrator within the community.

[0066] The blockchain on-chain governance method in this embodiment can be applied to scenarios where voting is required during the governance process on the blockchain.

[0067] Optionally, if it is determined that a vote is required on a proposal, the reputation of each administrator participating in the vote within the community can be retrieved. This reputation can be obtained based on the user's behavior during historical voting processes.

[0068] As an alternative implementation, the method described above can be used to obtain the reputation of each administrator within the community through the following steps:

[0069] Determine the historical voting accuracy, activity level, and contribution to governance activities of the corresponding administrators;

[0070] The reputation of a governance entity is calculated by weighting historical voting accuracy, activity level, and contribution to governance activities according to a preset weighting method.

[0071] Specifically, the reputation of the administrator can be determined using the following formula:

[0072] R i =α·P i +β·A i +γ·S i ;

[0073] Where: P i This refers to the historical voting accuracy of the administrators (used to characterize the rationality of the administrators' decisions); A i For the activity level of the administrator; S i α represents the contribution of a governor to other on-chain governance activities (e.g., the amount of on-chain governance tokens held), where P is the percentage of such contributions. i The weights, β is A i The weights, γ is S i The weight.

[0074] Step S204: Weight the first round votes of each governor on the proposal according to each governor's reputation to obtain the first weighted vote value of each governor, where the first round vote is used to indicate whether to approve or disapprove of the proposal.

[0075] After determining the reputation of each administrator, the first-round votes of each administrator on the proposal can be weighted based on their reputation. For example, after determining the voting results of each administrator, the corresponding voting results can be weighted based on the administrator's reputation to obtain the administrator's first weighted vote value. This first weighted vote value can reflect the strength of the administrator's influence on the voting results. For example, when the weighted reputation of administrator a is 1.5, if administrator a votes against, then the first weighted vote value of administrator a is 1.5 votes against; when the weighted reputation of administrator b is 0.5, if administrator b votes in favor, then the first weighted vote value of administrator b is 0.5 votes in favor.

[0076] The first round of voting could be the first round of voting in the referendum phase for self-governing individuals.

[0077] Before the referendum of the autonomous entities (i.e., before executing step S204), the governance committee needs to pass the proposal through two rounds of voting in the internal proposal stage before transferring the proposal to the referendum of the autonomous entities stage. Otherwise, if the proposal fails to pass in one round of the internal proposal stage, the proposal will be terminated directly.

[0078] Furthermore, each first weighted vote value can be: the vote value V of each administrator i for proposal j in the first round of voting. ij The voting weight W of the administrator i in the first round of voting i The product between them, and the voting weight W of the administrator i. i It is based on the reputation of the administrator i and the dispersion of the votes in the referendum stage, G(K). i The discrete score H corresponding to each voting option in the referendum phase of the autonomous referendum. i And the age or newness of each administrator's account. i It has been determined that each first weighted vote value can be:

[0079] W i V ij e -λdi ;

[0080] Where: i represents the i-th voter; j represents the j-th proposal; W i This represents the voting weight of voter i, based on their reputation score R. i Its voting behavior is dynamically adjusted; V ij This represents the vote value (degree of support, actual voting behavior) of voter i for proposal j, and can take discrete values ​​such as {0,1} (0 represents the option to vote against, and 1 represents the option to vote in favor); d iThe value represents the age of a voter's account (to prevent vote manipulation by newly created accounts in the short term). λ is a decay factor that causes the influence of new accounts to increase over time.

[0081] Step S206: Determine the first voting result of the first round of voting based on all the first weighted voting values.

[0082] After determining all the first-weighted vote values, the first vote result of the first round of voting can be determined from all the first-weighted vote values.

[0083] Step S208: Weight the second round of votes of each governor on the proposal according to each governor's reputation to obtain the second weighted vote value of each governor, wherein the second round of votes is used to indicate the degree of satisfaction with the proposal.

[0084] Specifically, the second round of voting can include multiple options for assessing satisfaction with the proposal, such as:

[0085] Kano voting options can be categorized into the following five types, and each autonomous participant can choose one option per vote:

[0086] I) Appealing proposals (meaning the proposal greatly surprises the administrator);

[0087] II) Expectation-based proposals (representing that this proposal is what the administrator personally wants);

[0088] III) Indifferent proposals (meaning that the proposal is irrelevant to the administrator);

[0089] IV) Basic proposal (meaning this proposal is a basic one that should have been done long ago);

[0090] V) Reverse proposal (meaning the proposal is disliked by the administrator).

[0091] Similar to step S204 above, after determining the reputation of each administrator, the second round of voting for the proposal by each administrator can be weighted based on their reputation. For example, after determining the voting result of each administrator, the corresponding voting result can be weighted based on the administrator's reputation to obtain the administrator's second weighted voting value. This second weighted voting value can reflect the strength of the administrator's influence on the voting result. For example, when the weighted reputation of administrator c is 1.5, if administrator c votes for option II, then the second weighted voting value corresponding to administrator c is 1.5 votes for option II.

[0092] Furthermore, each second weighted vote value can be: the vote value V of each administrator i for proposal j in the second round of voting. ijThe voting weight W of the administrator i in the second round of voting i The product between them, and the voting weight W of the administrator i. i It is based on the reputation of the administrator i and the dispersion of the votes in the referendum stage, G(K). i The discrete score H corresponding to each voting option in the referendum phase of the autonomous referendum. i And the age or newness of each administrator's account. i It has been determined that each first weighted vote value can be:

[0093] W i V ij e -λdi ;

[0094] Where: i represents the i-th voter; j represents the j-th proposal; W i This represents the voting weight of voter i, based on their reputation score R. i Its voting behavior is dynamically adjusted; V ij This represents the vote value (degree of support, actual voting behavior) of voter i for proposal j, and can take discrete scores such as {-2, -1, 0, 1, 2} (corresponding to the voting options of the five Kano voting options in the IV category mentioned above); d i The value represents the age of a voter's account (to prevent vote manipulation by newly created accounts in the short term). λ is a decay factor that causes the influence of new accounts to increase over time.

[0095] It should be noted that, because the options in the second round of voting are different from those in the first round, even if V ij Using the same representation, for the same governor i, V ij In the second round of voting, the corresponding V ij V corresponding to the first round of voting ij They are different.

[0096] Step S210: Determine the second voting result of the second round of voting based on all the second weighted voting values.

[0097] After determining all the second-weighted voting values, all the second-weighted voting values ​​can be used as the first voting result for the second round of voting.

[0098] Step S212: Based on the first voting result and the second voting result, determine the final voting result.

[0099] After determining the first and second voting results, the weighted result of the first round of voting can be determined based on the voting round weights, and the weighted result of the second round of voting can be determined based on the voting round weights. For example, if the voting round weights of the first and second rounds are the same, such as 1 or 50%, then when the voting round weights are both 1, the results of the first and second rounds can be directly added together. When the voting round weights are both 50%, the results of the first and second rounds can be multiplied by 50% and then added together. In addition, the voting round weights of the first and second rounds can also be different, which is not limited here.

[0100] Furthermore, the first voting result can be the sum of all first-weighted votes, the second voting result can be the sum of all second-weighted votes, and after the second voting result, the final voting result (Final Score) can be obtained by adding each first-weighted vote and second-weighted vote to the first and second voting results.

[0101]

[0102] In this embodiment, the following steps are taken: First, the reputation of each administrator within the community is obtained; second, each administrator's first-round vote on the proposal is weighted according to their reputation to obtain a first-weighted vote value, where the first-round vote indicates whether the administrator approves or disapproves the proposal; third, the first-round voting result is determined based on all first-weighted vote values; fourth, each administrator's second-round vote on the proposal is weighted according to their reputation to obtain a second-weighted vote value, where the second-round vote indicates the degree of satisfaction with the proposal; fifth, the second-round voting result is determined based on all second-weighted vote values; and finally, the final voting result is determined based on the first and second voting results. Because the weighted evaluation process, namely the first and second rounds of voting, weights each governor's vote on the proposal based on their reputation, it enhances the influence of long-term contributors and reputable governors on the vote. This achieves the goal of adjusting voting weights according to the governor's reputation, making it more difficult for large holders to manipulate the voting results. This technical effect improves governance quality and solves the problem in related technologies where voting weights are difficult to dynamically adjust, easily manipulated by large holders, and thus affect the quality of governance decisions.

[0103] As an alternative implementation, the method described above further includes the following steps before acquiring the reputation of each administrator within the community:

[0104] A verification request is initiated to the target address that uniquely corresponds to the entity identity of the administrator, so that the target address requests the verifiable credential corresponding to the entity identity from the verifiable credential issuer, and the verifiable credential issuer verifies the real entity identity from the identity repository of the target address to generate the target verifiable credential, wherein the target verifiable credential contains: entity identity information;

[0105] Specifically, this embodiment designs an on-chain governance access policy based on verifiable credentials. One entity identity can only correspond to one address. Optionally, one entity identity can only correspond to one DID (Decentralized Identity). Furthermore, uniqueness can be ensured through verifiable credentials. Generally (taking a self-governing community under Web3.0 as an example), to delay Sybil attacks, an address can only participate in voting after it has been generated and joined the community for the required time. However, this could potentially lead to a Sybil attack occurring suddenly at some point in the future. This embodiment designs a verifiable credential (VC, which is the core mechanism of Distributed Digital Identity DID) verification mechanism on the admission side. For any entity identity, the community, as the VC verifier, initiates a verification request to the address. As a result, the target address corresponding to the entity identity will request the corresponding verifiable credential from the verifiable credential issuer (i.e., the VC issuer). After verifying the real entity identity with the identity repository of the target address, the verifiable credential issuer issues the target verifiable credential for the target address to use. This target verifiable credential may contain: metadata and issuer signature (not including the declaration in traditional VC). The metadata includes the unique hash value of the real identity linked to the address (given by the encryption algorithm).

[0106] If the target verifiable credentials meet the preset approval requirements, the target address is allowed to join the community. The preset approval requirements include: the community does not contain an address corresponding to the entity's identity information, and the entity's identity information is genuine identity information.

[0107] Specifically, the community can use the unique hash value in the metadata to verify whether the real identity in the target verifiable credentials has joined the community (and joining the community does not necessarily mean having governance voting rights). Duplicate hash values ​​(i.e., addresses in the community that contain the entity's identity information) and addresses without real identity hash values ​​(i.e., entity identity information that is not real identity information) will be rejected from joining the community.

[0108] The method described in this embodiment can effectively reduce the probability of witch attacks and avoid the unfair impact of one-to-many identities on governance outcomes.

[0109] like Figure 3 As shown, as an optional implementation, the method described above further includes the following steps:

[0110] Step S302: If, within a first preset time period, the ratio of all target votes cast for the target option among multiple candidate options to the total number of votes cast within the preset time period is greater than or equal to a preset ratio, all target votes are identified as risk votes. The multiple candidate options are one of the following: all candidate options in the first round of voting, or all candidate options in the second round of voting.

[0111] Specifically, the first preset time period can be a relatively short period of time (e.g., a time period of 15 minutes, a time period of 60 minutes, etc.). In other words, a "batch" of votes for the same target option among multiple candidate options for the same decision in a short period of time will be identified as risky votes.

[0112] The preset ratio can be a pre-defined lower limit for risky votes, such as 50%.

[0113] For example, the maximum number of votes per hour can be designed to be 20% of the total number of all self-governing members in the community (that is, theoretically all votes can be completed in 5 hours, but each vote is set to last at least 12 hours to distribute the voting population). Once the number of votes for the same decision and the same option reaches more than 50% of the designed number in any 50% of the time within that hour, it is considered that there is potential collective decision-making, plutocracy, or other similar behaviors.

[0114] Step S304: Lock all designated ballots cast within the first preset time period in the second preset time period so that the designated ballots are not counted in the voting results, and return the designated ballots after the second preset time period.

[0115] In other words, once the target ballot is determined to be a risky ballot, all ballots within this batch (i.e., all designated ballots cast within the first preset time period) will be locked, and then released and returned after the second preset time period. For example, when the second preset time period is 24 hours, all designated ballots cast within the first preset time period can be locked for 24 hours and then returned, after which all designated ballots can be re-voted.

[0116] The method described in this embodiment can prevent all autonomous entities from being controlled by "cronyms," thereby preventing unfair decision-making.

[0117] As an optional implementation, the method described above further includes the following steps: obtaining ballot purchase requests from a designated address; determining a purchase fee rate corresponding to the ballot purchase request based on the cumulative number of ballots purchased at the designated address and the number indicated in the ballot purchase request; updating the designated administrator's purchase record, deducting the purchase fee rate from the designated administrator's account, and issuing the designated administrator the number of transaction ballots indicated in the ballot purchase request, wherein the transaction ballots are marked with a preset identifier, and the voting results of the transaction ballots are publicly searchable. In other words, this embodiment designs a public ballot purchase mechanism, the purpose of which is to reduce ballot purchase behavior and ensure fair governance results through a transparent approach. During on-chain governance, votes exchanged for tokens are allowed to be traded. Upon receiving a vote purchase request from a designated address, the number of votes purchased by that address is determined in real-time (i.e., the cumulative vote purchase quantity). Different cumulative vote purchase quantities correspond to different purchase fee rates. For example, a tiered system can be implemented, with the purchase fee rate ranging from 2 to 10 times the daily token transaction fee, depending on the number of votes purchased from the same address. The more votes purchased, the higher the purchase fee rate. This purchase fee rate can be fed back to the designated administrator. When the designated administrator determines the purchase fee rate, and their account balance is greater than or equal to the purchase fee rate, the designated administrator's purchase record is updated, the purchase fee rate is deducted from their account, and the designated administrator is issued the number of traded votes indicated by the vote purchase request. Furthermore, traded votes are specially marked with a preset identifier, and the voting results of traded votes are publicly searchable, allowing all administrators to see which proposal and option each traded vote was ultimately cast for. This embodiment, by making votes publicly traded and using purchase fee rates, increases the cost of purchasing votes while providing transparency and reducing the possibility of opaque operations.

[0118] As an optional implementation, the method described above further includes the following steps: In the current voting phase, the governance entity whose reputation meets the preset high reputation requirement is identified as the ledger clerk, so that the ledger clerk node obtains all voting information in the current voting phase and generates a hash tree with all voting information as leaf nodes. In other words, this embodiment designs a novel consensus mechanism (denoted as PoV, Proof of Vote), making the voting behavior itself part of the consensus process: When electing the ledger clerk node, the reputation of each governance entity is considered, and the governance entity whose reputation meets the preset high reputation requirement is selected as the ledger clerk. For example, the high reputation requirement could be: voting participation in the top 5%, reputation in the top 5%, etc., etc., which are not listed here. When the voting data is stored on the blockchain, a hash tree storage method (e.g., using a Merkle Tree structure) is used to ensure immutability. The Merkle Tree can be generated as follows: all voting records are collected off-chain and organized into a Merkle Tree in batches; each leaf node represents a user's voting information (including address, vote content, timestamp, and signature); the root hash is written to the blockchain for subsequent verification and auditing. The redefined PoV consensus mechanism formula is as follows:

[0119]

[0120] Where: d i It represents the age of a voter's account (to prevent vote manipulation by newly created accounts); λ is a decay factor that causes the influence of new accounts to increase over time.

[0121] As an optional implementation, the method described above further includes: obtaining the virtual assets staked by the administrator for a designated vote, and the administrator's designated voting result, wherein the designated vote is either a first-round vote or a second-round vote; if the designated voting result is determined to be a normal vote, returning the virtual assets to the administrator; if the designated voting result is determined to be a malicious vote, forfeiting the virtual assets according to preset forfeiture requirements. In other words, each time a vote is conducted (i.e., the first-round vote or the second-round vote), the administrator is allowed to stake virtual assets for voting (staking-based voting). If the designated voting result is determined to be a normal vote, all virtual assets are returned to the administrator; if the designated voting result is determined to be a malicious vote, the virtual assets are forfeited according to preset forfeiture requirements, for example, all or part of the assets are forfeited. This method increases voting costs and can effectively prevent the number of spam votes.

[0122] like Figure 4As shown, as an optional implementation, the method described above involves weighting each governor's second-round vote on the proposal according to each governor's reputation to obtain each governor's second weighted vote value, including:

[0123] Step S402: Based on the voting proportions of all administrators for each option in the second round of voting results, determine the distribution information of the second round of voting. Specifically, the distribution information is the voting entropy value H. i Voting entropy value H i The formula used to measure the dispersion of votes is shown below:

[0124]

[0125] Where: P j Let H be the voting proportion for the j-th option, and let H be the entropy value. i The higher the value, the more dispersed the voting distribution and the lower the weight, preventing the voting from being dominated by a single opinion.

[0126] Step S404: Determine the option weights corresponding to the options voted by the administrators based on the administrators' reputation. Specifically, the option weights can be determined using the Kano weight function G(K i Kano weight function G(K) i Based on reputation i Dynamically adjusted, rather than fixed values, the categories from top to bottom are: Appealing Proposal, Expectation-Based Proposal, Undifferentiated Proposal, Basic Proposal, and Reverse Proposal.

[0127]

[0128] tanh(αR i ) is the hyperbolic tangent function, which allows the weights to change smoothly between [-1,1], avoiding drastic jumps;

[0129] α is an adjustment parameter used to control the degree of influence of the reputation score;

[0130] When R i When the weight is low, the weight of charismatic voting is close to 1.5, and the weight of negative voting is close to -2.0;

[0131] When R i When the value is high, the voting weight will increase slightly (but it will not increase indefinitely because tanh(x) has convergence properties).

[0132] Step S406: Determine the second weighted voting value based on the administrator's reputation, the distribution information of the second round of voting, and the option weights. Specifically, after determining the administrator's reputation, the distribution information of the second round of voting, and the option weights, the second weighted voting value Wi(P) can be determined based on the following calculation method:

[0133]

[0134] Where: R i： Voter U i Reputation score; H i： The voting entropy value of this proposal measures the uniformity of the vote distribution; G(K) i ): Weight function based on the Kano model; λ and μ are adjustment functions.

[0135] The following describes an application example that applies any of the foregoing embodiments:

[0136] In a DAO (Decentralized Organization), a proposal to add a smart contract to the blockchain needs to be submitted. The DAO has a voluntary "On-Chain Governance Committee" composed of members with different roles. If the On-Chain Governance Committee deems the proposal valuable and approves it through two internal votes, it enters the Autonomous Member Referendum (AGU) stage. All addresses in the DAO have voting rights. After the first round of voting (48 hours), 80% vote in favor and 20% vote against. If the DAO internally stipulates that a single proposal needs 95% approval to pass, then regardless of the first round's results, a second round of voting will proceed. In this second round, all autonomous members will choose one option from four categories: attractive proposal, expected proposal, indifferent proposal, basic proposal, and negative proposal, with each vote weighted 50%. After weighted calculation of the two rounds of voting, 74% vote in favor and 26% vote against. The proposal ultimately fails, and the on-chain governance process ends.

[0137] Furthermore, dynamic threshold θ can also be applied. pass The method for determining whether this proposal passes is as follows:

[0138] θ pass =κ·N active ·V max ;

[0139] κ: a coefficient, which can be any numerical range used to indicate the passage of a proposal, for example, between (0.5, 0.9); N active V represents the number of valid users who voted on the current proposal. max Theoretically, the highest positive score that an address (i.e., voter i) can give is

[0140] The final voting result (Final Score) is compared with this dynamic threshold judgment formula to determine whether the proposal passes. That is, the proposal passes only if the final voting result is greater than the dynamic threshold obtained in real time by this dynamic threshold judgment formula. Otherwise, it fails.

[0141] According to another aspect of the embodiments of this application, an electronic device is also provided, including a processor, a communication interface, a memory, and a communication bus, wherein the processor, the communication interface, and the memory communicate with each other through the communication bus; wherein the memory is used to store a computer program; and the processor is used to execute the method steps of any of the above embodiments by running the computer program stored in the memory.

[0142] According to another aspect of the embodiments of this application, a computer-readable storage medium is also provided, wherein a computer program is stored therein, wherein the computer program is configured to perform the method steps of any of the above embodiments when it is run.

[0143] It should be noted that, for the sake of simplicity, the foregoing method embodiments are all described as a series of actions. However, those skilled in the art should understand that this application is not limited to the described order of actions, as some steps may be performed in other orders or simultaneously according to this application. Furthermore, those skilled in the art should also understand that the embodiments described in the specification are preferred embodiments, and the actions and modules involved are not necessarily essential to this application.

[0144] Through the above description of the embodiments, those skilled in the art can clearly understand that the methods according to the above embodiments can be implemented by means of software plus necessary general-purpose hardware platforms. Of course, they can also be implemented by hardware, but in many cases the former is a better implementation method. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of this application, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium (such as ROM (Read-Only Memory) / RAM (Random Access Memory), magnetic disk, optical disk), and includes several instructions to cause a terminal device (which may be a mobile phone, computer, server, or network device, etc.) to execute the methods described in the various embodiments of this application.

[0145] According to another aspect of the embodiments of this application, a blockchain on-chain governance apparatus for implementing the above-described blockchain on-chain governance method is also provided. Figure 5This is a structural block diagram of an optional on-chain blockchain governance device according to an embodiment of this application, such as... Figure 5 As shown, the device may include:

[0146] Module 51 is used to obtain the reputation of each administrator within the community;

[0147] The first voting evaluation module 52 is used to weight the first round of voting of each governor on the proposal according to the reputation of each governor, so as to obtain the first weighted voting value of each governor, wherein the first round of voting is used to indicate whether to approve or disapprove of the proposal;

[0148] The first determining module 53 is used to determine the first voting result of the first round of voting based on all the first weighted voting values;

[0149] The second voting evaluation module 54 is used to weight the second round of voting of each governor on the proposal according to the reputation of each governor, so as to obtain the second weighted voting value of each governor, wherein the second round of voting is used to indicate the degree of satisfaction with the proposal;

[0150] The second determining module 55 is used to determine the second voting result of the second round of voting based on all the second weighted voting values;

[0151] The final result determination module 56 is used to determine the final voting result based on the first voting result and the second voting result.

[0152] It should be noted that the acquisition module 51 in this embodiment can be used to perform the above step S202, the first voting evaluation module 52 in this embodiment can be used to perform the above step S204, the first determination module 53 in this embodiment can be used to perform the above step S206, the second voting evaluation module 54 in this embodiment can be used to perform the above step S208, the second determination module 55 in this embodiment can be used to perform the above step S210, and the final result determination module 56 in this embodiment can be used to perform the above step S212.

[0153] In addition to the modules described above, the apparatus in this embodiment may also include modules that execute any method in any of the aforementioned blockchain on-chain governance methods.

[0154] It should be noted that the examples and application scenarios implemented by the above modules and corresponding steps are the same, but are not limited to the content disclosed in the above embodiments. It should also be noted that the above modules, as part of a device, can operate in environments such as... Figure 1 The hardware environment shown can be implemented through software or hardware, and the hardware environment includes the network environment.

[0155] According to another aspect of the embodiments of this application, an electronic device for implementing the above-described blockchain on-chain governance method is also provided. The electronic device may be a server, a terminal, or a combination thereof.

[0156] According to another embodiment of this application, an electronic device is also provided, comprising: Figure 6 As shown, the electronic device may include: a processor 1501, a communication interface 1502, a memory 1503, and a communication bus 1504, wherein the processor 1501, the communication interface 1502, and the memory 1503 communicate with each other through the communication bus 1504.

[0157] Memory 1503 is used to store computer programs;

[0158] When processor 1501 executes the program stored in memory 1503, it performs the following steps:

[0159] Step S202: Obtain the reputation of each administrator within the community.

[0160] Step S204: Weight the first round votes of each governor on the proposal according to each governor's reputation to obtain the first weighted vote value of each governor, where the first round vote is used to indicate whether to approve or disapprove of the proposal.

[0161] Step S206: Determine the first voting result of the first round of voting based on all the first weighted voting values.

[0162] Step S208: Weight the second round of votes of each governor on the proposal according to each governor's reputation to obtain the second weighted vote value of each governor, wherein the second round of votes is used to indicate the degree of satisfaction with the proposal.

[0163] Step S210: Determine the second voting result of the second round of voting based on all the second weighted voting values.

[0164] Step S212: Based on the first voting result and the second voting result, determine the final voting result.

[0165] Optionally, in this embodiment, the communication bus can be a PCI (Peripheral Component Interconnect) bus or an EISA (Extended Industry Standard Architecture) bus, etc. This communication bus can be divided into an address bus, a data bus, a control bus, etc. For ease of illustration, only one thick line is used to represent it in the figure, but this does not mean that there is only one bus or one type of bus. The communication interface is used for communication between the aforementioned electronic device and other devices.

[0166] The memory may include random access memory (RAM) or non-volatile memory (NVM), such as at least one disk storage device. Optionally, the memory may also be at least one storage device located remotely from the aforementioned processor.

[0167] As an example, the aforementioned memory 1503 may include, but is not limited to, the acquisition module 51, the first voting evaluation module 52, the first determination module 53, the second voting evaluation module 54, the second determination module 55, and the final result determination module 56 from the aforementioned blockchain on-chain governance device. Furthermore, it may include, but is not limited to, other module units from the aforementioned blockchain on-chain governance device, which will not be elaborated upon in this example.

[0168] The processors mentioned above can be general-purpose processors, including but not limited to: CPU (Central Processing Unit), NP (Network Processor), etc.; they can also be DSP (Digital Signal Processor), ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array) or other programmable logic devices, discrete gate or transistor logic devices, or discrete hardware components.

[0169] This application also provides a computer-readable storage medium, which includes a stored program, wherein the program executes the method steps of the above method embodiments when it runs.

[0170] Optionally, in this embodiment, the storage medium may include, but is not limited to, various media capable of storing program code, such as USB flash drives, ROMs, RAMs, portable hard drives, magnetic disks, or optical disks.

[0171] The sequence numbers of the embodiments in this application are for descriptive purposes only and do not represent the superiority or inferiority of the embodiments.

[0172] If the integrated units in the above embodiments are implemented as software functional units and sold or used as independent products, they can be stored in the aforementioned computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of this application, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, or all or part of the technical solution, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions to cause one or more computer devices (which may be personal computers, servers, or network devices, etc.) to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of this application.

[0173] In the above embodiments of this application, the descriptions of each embodiment have different focuses. For parts not described in detail in a certain embodiment, please refer to the relevant descriptions of other embodiments.

[0174] In the several embodiments provided in this application, it should be understood that the disclosed client can be implemented in other ways. The device embodiments described above are merely illustrative; for example, the division of units is only a logical functional division, and in actual implementation, there may be other division methods. For example, multiple units or components may be combined or integrated into another system, or some features may be ignored or not executed. Furthermore, the coupling or direct coupling or communication connection shown or discussed may be through some interfaces, indirect coupling or communication connection between units or modules, and may be electrical or other forms.

[0175] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. The components shown as units may or may not be physical units; that is, they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of the units can be selected to achieve the purpose of the solution provided in this embodiment, depending on actual needs.

[0176] Furthermore, the functional units in the various embodiments of this application can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit. The integrated unit can be implemented in hardware or as a software functional unit.

[0177] The above description is only a preferred embodiment of this application. It should be noted that for those skilled in the art, several improvements and modifications can be made without departing from the principle of this application, and these improvements and modifications should also be considered within the scope of protection of this application.

Claims

1. A blockchain on-chain governance method, characterized in that, include: Gain credibility with each administrator within the community; The first round of voting by each governor on the proposal is weighted according to the reputation of each governor to obtain the first weighted vote value of each governor, wherein the first round of voting is used to indicate whether the governor approves or disapproves of the proposal; The first voting result of the first round of voting is determined based on all the first weighted voting values; The second-round votes of each governor on the proposal are weighted according to the reputation of each governor to obtain a second weighted vote value for each governor, wherein the second-round vote is used to indicate the degree of satisfaction with the proposal; The second voting result of the second round of voting is determined based on all the second weighted voting values; The final voting result is determined based on the first and second voting results.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Prior to acquiring the reputation of each administrator within the community, the method further includes: A verification request is initiated to the target address that uniquely corresponds to the entity identity of the administrator, so that the target address requests the verifiable credential corresponding to the entity identity from the verifiable credential issuer, and the verifiable credential issuer generates the target verifiable credential after verifying the real entity identity with the identity repository of the target address, wherein the target verifiable credential includes: the entity identity information; If the target verifiable credentials meet the preset approval requirements, the target address is allowed to join the community, wherein the preset approval requirements include: the community does not contain the address corresponding to the entity's identity information, and the entity's identity information is genuine identity information.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The acquisition of the reputation of each administrator within the community includes: Determine the historical voting accuracy, activity level, and contribution to governance activities of the corresponding administrators; The historical voting accuracy, activity level, and contribution to governance activities are weighted and calculated according to a preset weighting method to obtain the reputation of the governance entity.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method further includes: If, within a first preset time period, the ratio of all target votes cast for a target option among multiple candidate options to the total number of votes cast within the preset time period is greater than or equal to a preset ratio, then all target votes are identified as risk votes. The multiple candidate options are one of the following: all candidate options in the first round of voting, and all candidate options in the second round of voting. All designated ballots cast within the first preset time period are locked in the second preset time period so that the designated ballots are not counted in the voting results, and the designated ballots are returned after the second preset time period.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method further includes: Retrieve ballot purchase requests from the specified address; Based on the cumulative number of ballots purchased at the specified address and the number of ballot purchase request indications, the purchase fee rate corresponding to the ballot purchase request is determined. If the designated administrator at the designated address determines the purchase fee rate, and the designated administrator's account balance is greater than or equal to the purchase fee rate, the designated administrator's purchase record is updated, the purchase fee rate is deducted from the designated administrator's account, and the designated administrator is issued the number of transaction ballots indicated by the ballot purchase request. The transaction ballots are marked with a preset identifier, and the voting results of the transaction ballots are publicly searchable.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method further includes: In the current voting phase, the administrator whose reputation meets the preset high reputation requirement is identified as the ledger keeper, so that the ledger keeper node can obtain all the voting information in the current voting phase and generate a hash tree with all the voting information as leaf nodes.

7. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method further includes: Obtain the virtual assets pledged by the administrator for a designated vote, and the designated voting result of the administrator, wherein the designated vote is either the first round of voting or the second round of voting; If the designated voting result is determined to be a normal vote, the virtual assets will be returned to the administrator; If it is determined that the specified voting result is a malicious vote, the virtual assets shall be confiscated in accordance with the preset confiscation requirements.

8. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The second-round weighted evaluation of each governor's vote on the proposal based on each governor's reputation yields a second weighted vote value for each governor, including: Based on the voting proportions of all administrators for each option in the second round of voting results, the distribution information of the second round of voting is determined; The weight of each option voted by the administrator is determined based on the administrator's reputation. The second weighted voting value is determined based on the reputation of the administrator, the distribution information of the second round of voting, and the option weights.

9. A blockchain on-chain governance device, characterized in that, include: The acquisition module is used to acquire the reputation of each administrator within the community. The first voting evaluation module is used to weight the first round of voting of each governor on the proposal according to the reputation of each governor, so as to obtain the first weighted voting value of each governor, wherein the first round of voting is used to indicate whether the governor approves or disapproves of the proposal. The first determining module is used to determine the first voting result of the first round of voting based on all the first weighted voting values; The second voting evaluation module is used to weight the second round of voting of each governor on the proposal according to the reputation of each governor, so as to obtain the second weighted voting value of each governor, wherein the second round of voting is used to indicate the degree of satisfaction with the proposal; The second determining module is used to determine the second voting result of the second round of voting based on all the second weighted voting values; The final result determination module is used to determine the final voting result based on the first voting result and the second voting result.

10. An electronic device comprising a processor, a communication interface, a memory, and a communication bus, wherein, The processor, the communication interface, and the memory communicate with each other via the communication bus, characterized in that... The memory is used to store computer programs; The processor is configured to perform the method of any one of claims 1 to 8 by running the computer program stored in the memory.

11. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The storage medium stores a computer program, wherein the computer program is configured to execute the method described in any one of claims 1 to 8 when run on a processor.

Images