Voting Snapshot Draft (4 Proposals)

Please give feedback on these. There are so many things to consider.
Please don’t post your answer/vote here, this is a place to discuss how to phrase and draft the voting text and answers, not give your answer to the questions.

  1. Voting System
  2. Quorum
  3. Duration
  4. Pending Time

EDIT: Combined A) and old B) option.

1 What should the DAO’s voting system be?
a) Single Choice Voting (Each voter may select only one choice) (current) and/or Approval Voting (Each voter may select any number of choices) as decided by the Proposers/authors.

b) Quadratic voting (Each voter may spread voting power across any number of choices. Results are calculated quadratically.
c) Ranked choice voting (Each voter may select and rank any number of choices. Results are calculated by instant-runoff counting method.)
d) Weighted voting (Each voter may spread voting power across any number of choices.)
e) Basic voting (Single choice voting with three choices: For, Against or Abstain)
f) none of the above / discuss further

2 What should the Quorum be?
a) 10%
b) 15%
c) 20% (current)
d) 25%
e) none of the above / discuss further

3 What should the duration of the votes be?
a) 2 days
b) 3 days (current)
c) 4 days
d) 5 days
e) none of the above / discuss further

4 What should the pending time be before a vote goes live?
a) 1 day
b) 2 days (current)
c) 3 days
d) 4 days
e) none of the above / discuss further

Am I missing something? Silke mentioned a lot of good points, such as do we want to have vote delegation, etc.

Do we want to also address right now the issue of voting cycles (How long it should be put up on the forum for, what days of the week/month we should hold votes etc.)?

3 Likes

Thank you. the voting needs to be simpler and quicker. People want quicker turn around.

1 What should the DAO’s voting system be?

A) (Simple Voting) Includes Basic Voting, Single Choice Voting, Approval Voting and Weighted Voting - to be determined by the Proposal Authors
B) Quadratic Voting

I have made a quorum statistic of first 4 snapshot votes, which are as follows:

1st vote:
Top 15 wallets reach 10% quorum, top 36 wallets reach 15% quorum
2nd vote:
Top 15 wallets reach 10% quorum, top 36 wallets reach 15% quorum
3rd vote:
Top 23 wallets reach 10% quorum, top 58 wallets reach 15% quorum
4th vote:
Top 19 wallets reach 10% quorum, top 42 wallets reach 15% quorum

And through the observe these votes and on-chain data I found tokens are not scattered enough, popular participation is decreasing, the faithful big money hodler are buy at the bottom.

It can easily lead plutocratic control if vote have less time to promote, fewer participants, shorter voting time, lower quorum. Which would be reduce participation interest of little money holder and a lack of incentive for newcomers who want to participate in community’s governance, because the tokens only have governance as an empowerment. If the base is not active and does not attract the newcomers, who will buy the tokens in your hands? That would be a dead-end cycle of big money hodler constantly adding to their positions and entering a self-burial.

I think the steady rise of a token requires a healthy economic model, not gimmick making.

1 Like

Looks good, thanks @Zylo, and I think we should leave the other questions (such as voting delegations for a following snapshot) but maybe include the draf voting cycles already on this one:

5 How long should proposals be in the Forum before voting?
a) 3 days after published in the Forum
b) 5 days after published in the Forum
c) 7 days after published in the Forum

6 What days of the week we should hold votes?
(I guess this is kind of pending how long the snapshot votes will take)
a) Start last day of the week
b) Start first day of the weekend
c) Start first day of the week

Also we need to decide on a Temperature Check system to grantee that only proposals that community agrees go to snapshot.

And agree with @SShW that the quorum shouldn’t be less than 15% for the reasons he explained… also we should think how can we incentive people to be more participative in voting.

I agree that we need time for discussion

I think a) and g) should be combined into one option, since they perform one result. Now this will split the votes.

1 Like

I have edited my post and combined a and b into A

Or get something happening, with a clause that changes can be made later - re voting. Ranked choice voting is good. Makes people think closely about all options on the table, instead of ignoring. Assange’s situation is in crisis.

In addition, the proposal must be implemented immediately after the end of the proposal. Closing the additional issue and adding the extra signature will be implemented by Amir, which is the most basic responsibility of the extra signature. If you don’t do it immediately, then vote him out of the extra signature.
另外添加一条,提案结束后必须马上执行,关闭增发和添加多签都是等amir执行,这是多签人最基本的职责,如果不马上执行的话,那么投票让他退出多签。

These two options are the same???

Perhaps a voting test - to determine who votes and how many do? Then based on a testing outcome firm it up.

Yes, those two votes happened at the same time.

1 Like
  1. Voting System
    -----b) Quadratic voting
  2. Quorum
    -----e) none of the above / discuss further
    It is recommended to set the ratio flexibly according to the different stages of the project
  3. Duration
    ------b) 3 days (current)
  4. Pending Time
    -------b) 2 days (current)

我觉得不需要讨论持币是否集中的问题,前期集中是必然的事情,后期流动性增大后持币才可能更分散。
I don’t think we need to discuss whether the coin holdings are concentrated or not, the concentration in the early stage is a matter of necessity, and the coin holdings may be more diversified only after the liquidity increases in the later stage.

1 Like

Agree, if you do not have the enthusiasm to participate, please quit, otherwise you will only make a fool of yourself
同意,如果你没有参与的热情就请退出,否则只会自取其辱

1 Like

One of the biggest weaknesses of quadratic voting is the lack of moderation when dealing with cheating.The specific term used for cheating with quadratic voting is Sybil attacks. These attacks use sybils, or fake or duplicate identities, to influence community-orientated decisions to push them in their favor. Since a single vote has the potential to tilt a majoritarian group decision, prevention of sybil attacks is an important priority in ensuring the security of quadratic voting. With one of its priorities being an open, peer-to-peer network, an anti-sybil identification software is a requirement to implement widespread quadratic voting.

二次投票最大的缺点之一是在处理作弊时缺乏节制。二次投票作弊的具体术语是Sybil攻击。这些攻击使用sybils,或假或重复的身份,以影响面向社区的决定,推动他们对自己有利。由于单一投票有可能使多数决定倾向于多数决定,防止sybil攻击是确保二次投票安全的重要优先事项。由于其优先级之一是开放的对等网络,反sybil身份识别软件是实现广泛的二次投票的必要条件。

This is so complicated, maybe we should divide it into several questions to make people understand and vote easier:

  1. How to calculate the votes?
    a. one $Justice one vote
    b. one address one vote
    c. Quadric voting…
    d. …

  2. How to design single choice?
    a. Approve/Disapprove
    b. Approve/Disapprove/Abandon

  3. How to design multi choices?
    a. …
    b. …
    c. …

I would love a way how to give every single vote the same voting power. I personally think that Plutocracy has nothing to do with real justice or in other terms a fair voting system.

I’m aware that the problem with Plutocracy hasn’t been solved properly, without registering an identity… is there way that I maybe don’t know? Is there a way how to make it more democratic kinda?

Should the quorum for a governance proposal to pass be:

  1. 25% of token supply voting overall (i.e. 4,337,884,877 $JUSTICE)
  2. 25% of token supply voting in favor of the successful choice (i.e. 4,337,884,877 $JUSTICE)
  3. 20% of token supply voting overall (i.e. 3,470,307,901 $JUSTICE)
  4. 20% of token supply voting in favor of the successful choice (i.e. 3,470,307,901 $JUSTICE)
  5. 15% of token supply voting overall (i.e. 2,602,730,926 $JUSTICE)
  6. 15% of token supply voting in favor of the successful choice (i.e. 2,602,730,926 $JUSTICE)
  7. 10% of token supply voting overall (i.e. 1,735,153,951 $JUSTICE)
  8. 10% of token supply voting in favor of the successful choice (i.e. 1,735,153,951 $JUSTICE)
  9. 5% of token supply voting overall (i.e. 867,576,975 $JUSTICE)
  10. 5% of token supply voting in favor of the successful choice (i.e. 867,576,975 $JUSTICE)
  11. 1% of token supply voting overall (i.e. 173,515,395 $JUSTICE)
  12. 1% of token supply voting in favor of the successful choice
    (i.e. 173,515,395 $JUSTICE)
  13. None of the above / discuss further
1 Like