Proposal requirements

Meta-Governance
#1

I think the staked Baln Requirement of 0,1% in one individual wallet is too high.

First of all, it limits the amount of people able to call a vote to 1000 (when all Baln is staked, and perfectly distributed over a thousand people), but in practice i guess it’s closer to a 100., and that number will only fall if the platform is as succesfull as i think it could be.

Maybe an option where investors can propose a vote together, and together be required to have 0.1% of baln could mitigate this problem, while also preventing a wildspread of votes.

Also, there’s 100 bnUSD locked up to be repaid when the vote passes, and i think that makes people do the work to rally votes, and not spam votes, but it does very little to deter bad actors. Maybe we could add a 3rd vote option for a bad faith vote, and penalize them extra?

1 Like
#2

What do you think is a proper ownership percentage required to submit proposals that could drastically change the protocol profitability, security, etc? Curious what you think is the proper threshold and why.

I modeled off compound. Compound is 1%, that felt Draconian, so I took 1/10th of that.

#3

That depends on what we are trying to build, and what we are trying to prevent here :slight_smile:

the way i understand it as of now:
Wants:

  • community active in governance
  • idea meritocracy

Dont wants:

  • Vote spamming
  • bad Actors somehow gaming the voting system for their own gain (at a cost to the platform).

I dont think the current Baln requirement helps any of the goals stated above (except for vote spamming, by limiting the amount of people able to call a vote).

Personally i think stated goals would be better served by one of the following mechanics:

  1. either a staked baln requirement of 10 people supporting the vote with a minimum of 1k Baln (for example).
  2. Requirement to stake baln on the vote: If the vote passes, you get all your Baln back, if vote doesn’t pass you only get 90% back. If your vote is called out as a bad faith vote, you lose all

I dont think its about the amounts per se, more the mechanics behind them.

#4

@Uglyrage I’ve been holding off replaying because I wanted to get my thoughts in order.

I disagree. If a proposal is well thought out and clearly benefits Balanced, then finding a sponsor to propose the vote shouldn’t be hard. We have open venue’s full of discourse - driving both community involvement and idea meritocracy.

Ideally proposing the vote is the last step in getting a proposal to vote. The discussions on proposals so far have been invaluable in informing voters and reworking proposals. I don’t see how lowering the proposal BALN requirements changes that. Conversely, doing so just makes it easier for bad actors to initiate a vote and/or vote spamming.

#5

Yeah, the forums are amazing, and i think it has improved some proposals before being put to a vote allready.

btw, i checked, at the moment there are a little under 100 wallets that have the Baln to be able to call a vote ( ICON Tracker )

Also, i think it is possible to get one of those 100 whales to support a good vote. The question that’s bugging me… Can we really speak of decentralisation if the amount of people able to call a vote is so small (especially considering i expect all of the early contributors, the core team, and some p-reps to be in the list).

Also, i know the team truly values community contribution and decentralisation (scott has been pushing for other people to call a vote, so far without any luck i believe. Which is understandable if nobody is able to call them).

1 Like