I would invite you to look at the history of just the last hundred years and look for all the other technologies, ideas, events that would finally, FINALLY take the yoke of the poor and lowly and elevate them to their rightful position, or that would end corruption, or end wars and bring world peace.
The most recent that comes to mind was the internet itself. Read up on the high hopes ppl in some quarters had for the equalisation of power, for the spread of knowledge, for the enrichment of the poor.
The internet gave us an amplification of idiots, it made the rich richer, the lies more compelling and it gave us fucking Trump.
Every new technology will be used better by the rich, the more organised, the more ruthless. Every instrument that conveys power of any kind will be used better by the criminals and the fascists.
Nothing about this seems like it will actually "break the big-money monopoly". The problem with money in politics is not that there isn't an efficient way for small donors to donate, it's that big donors donate more. The article says that a "movement" will aggregate tokens based around a cause and then donors will vote on who to donate money to, which seems like a system ripe for exploitation- what's to stop me from getting 51% of the tokens in a movement and hijacking it, effectively doubling my donation? And why do we need a crypto/blockchain based donation aggregator, anyway? There's no particular reason why a blockchain based system is any better at being a big pot of money than a traditional donation system.
All this, combined with the fact that "Peeps Democracy will generate revenue by taking a 4.75% fee on top of donations", makes this seem much less like a legitimate operation and more like a politics themed scam. Especially since ActBlue, the big donation platform mentioned in the article, only takes a 3.95% fee for credit card processing. If blockchain is really so much better, why does it cost more to use than normal banking?
I've seen suggestions that differ from whatever the heck these chumps are doing. Keep money out of it - use the security of blockchain to register votes, and distribute a standard voting app over Android/iOS, so we can have and hold votes in real time.
Also seen it suggested that we could use that system to speed up election cycles, by having the votes operate on a tally. Basically, if a sitting politician's ratings drop low enough, they're gone on the spot. Politician voted against your rights? Vote against theirs, today. If they're a big enough ass, they'll be gone by tomorrow, not four years from now. That's four years we don't have anymore.
I have no idea what money had to do with any of this, I'm a communist, fuck money I have a veggie garden
The idea of blockchain voting is existentially terrifying to me. "Electoral security" is not a concern- actual voter fraud occurs in rates of single-digits per national election. Approximately zero percent of the problems with our electoral system would be solved by it, while a whole host of new problems would be introduced. Far more pressing is the concern that those already in power build the rules to disenfranchise groups of people, and turning voting into an app makes that so much easier.
"Speeding up election cycles" is not necessarily a good thing. And in fact, what you proposed- instant on-demand votes triggered by low polls- would be a *terrible* thing. We *want* politicians to be able to make unpopular choices without being instantly kicked out, because otherwise we're at the mercy of public sentiment. Imagine if your technology was in place during the early 2000s. Any politician who voted against the war in Afghanistan, or the war in Iraq, would've been booted. We would've had a 100% pro-war legislature. And when the whole government is united, there's no opposition voice.
In your own words, could you briefly sum up what makes it better, easier to use, and/or more efficient than existing systems?
Edit: It's been six hours. Funny how no one ever seems to have an answer to that question...