this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2025
479 points (99.8% liked)
History Memes
942 readers
733 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How could NFTs revolutionize democracy?
I answered this more thoroughly further up, but to put it concisely, NFTs could revolutionize democracy by creating verifiable, tamper-proof systems for identity, voting, and governance. They could enable self-sovereign digital IDs for secure elections, transparent public ledgers that make every ballot and budget auditable, and non-transferable governance tokens that let citizens participate directly in decision-making. Even civic assets could exist as shared NFTs, turning taxpayers into actual stakeholders in their communities. In essence, NFTs could shift democracy from trust in authority to trust in transparency.
No. NFTs are traceable, and key to democratic elections is the anonymity of the vote.
You could screw democracy by relying on this. You cannot anonymise NFTs, because the traceability is a key and defining feature of all things blockchain.
I understand where you're coming from, but millions this last US election cycle don't even know if their vote was counted. Transparent voting is the only way to restore confidence in the democratic process and ensure that there's no tampering on either side.
You are so off. "Transparent Voting" is a tool for autocrats and dictators to pressure people's votes and punish dissidents.
In Germany, everyone can volunteer as an election worker, votes get counted multiple times etc. We don't have a problem with lacking confidence in this regard.
If you want "transparent voting", ask Russia.
What I’m describing isn’t transparency of individual votes, but of systems: a public, auditable record that proves votes were counted correctly without exposing identities.
The goal isn’t to replace systems like Germany’s, but to extend trust where it’s currently broken. Places where citizens can’t volunteer, ballots disappear, or results are unverifiable. It’s not about seeing into votes; it’s about ensuring no one can alter them unseen.
But NFTs are not going to improve trust in these systems. I don't know exactly how you picture NFT implementation in election systems, but how I see it the feature that would help like this is the reason it cannot work: the traceability. If you want to ensure that each vote is only used once and counted all the way to the end, you need to link it to indiciduals.
Also, there are easier ways to raise trust in elections. Allow foreign oversight. Allow the populace to volunteer and count etc.
Fair points, and I agree that transparency without privacy is surveillance, not democracy. The version I’m describing wouldn’t track who voted but would use zero-knowledge proofs or one-time identity tokens to confirm that each verified citizen voted once without revealing which vote is theirs. It’s about verifiable integrity rather than traceability.
You’re also right that civic oversight and volunteer counting are the gold standard. That’s how it should work. The technology becomes relevant only where that level of trust or participation isn’t possible. In healthy democracies, NFTs wouldn’t replace human oversight; they’d simply add another layer of cryptographic assurance that no one upstream can quietly change the math.
Who would implement those systems? The same people who do not implement civil oversight and volunteer election work. Why would the same people who block the implementation of the "gold standard" implement your system and why would you trust them with not tampering an electronic system?
They wouldn’t have to. The idea is that such a system wouldn’t rely on any single government to implement or control it. The protocol itself would be public, open source, and globally auditable. Anyone could verify the math, not just the people in power. If an administration tried to tamper with it, that manipulation would be visible to everyone, instantly. The goal isn’t to give them another tool to manage; it’s to make tampering technically impossible rather than politically discouraged.
Someone would need to say: "This is how we vote now", and someone would have to organise elections around this new method.
True, someone would have to say that. The difference is that the system could be built and proven independently before any government adopted it. It would not depend on authority to exist, only to recognize what already works.
Wrong. Every elective system needs an authority. That does not mean an authority as in authoritative, but in the sense of an organisation that hosts it.
How would you test an elective system without a government that holds elections with your system?
Why would that someone that says "This is how we do this!" not say "We do it the 'gold standard' way now!"?
Another thought: from what I gathered from your explanations, you'd want to implement a system very similar to the german elective process but digitalised with Blockchain and NFTs. That's not revolutionary, it's just on the same wavelenght crypto bros are surfing for years.
NFT has no practical use in this area. Leave it be.
Every system needs an authority to organize it, yes, but authority and verification do not have to be the same thing. A government could still run elections while the verification layer remains public and mathematically provable. Testing could happen in smaller civic or international contexts before official adoption.
You’re right that digitalizing a working system isn’t revolutionary by itself, but the point isn’t hype or “crypto bro” novelty. The goal is a trust model that doesn’t collapse when the authority running it does. It’s about resilience, not replacement.
So you started out with "NFT based voting systems could bring fair elections to democratically challenged regions" and are now at "NFT based voting systems could build resilience for elections". You do realize how much you moved the goal post here, don't you?
Democratic resilience does not mean a blockchainification of voting systems. Democratic resilience depends on an engaged society, the defense of civil and human rights and vigilant democrats. And education, of course.