AIP-436: Enhancing Financial Decision-Making with Super Majority Voting of 2/3's for Allocations over US $500,000

If the goal is to lower the voting influence of very large holders like Horizen Labs or Mocaverse, another approach is creating a system more akin to a representative democracy. There could be elections held for delegation representatives. The top 50 delegations (similar to parties in a parliamentary system) would each get one vote. That would be a major change to way things are done now but could do a lot to help protect minority interests and empower sub groups like guilds and geographic-specific Ape Clubs.

5 Likes

I like the idea of a super majority, but part of me believes we should be careful of denominating an amount because otherwise we will see a lot of $999,999 proposals to circumvent this because we are being more RAW (Rules as Written).

I think we should be more flexible in this, and provide some guidelines on when an AIP would require a super-majority than strictly denominating an amount.

6 Likes

What are your ideas on what the criteria should be?

1 Like

It’s hard because there isn’t going to be a perfect solution and there will always be niche circumstances and extraneous factors to consider, but here are some ideas (good, bad, unreasonable, reasonable, absurd, etc…)

  • What kind of Category the AIP is under (this would also require a revaluation of categories but something like what i had here where I created new categories )
    • Things like branding could all require super majority. Aspects like gaming probably wouldnt benefit from this limitation. Budget is another one that can go either way (especially if we want to consider the longevity of the DAO and whether this will be a problem later down the road).
  • If the AIP is narrow in scope or not. Meaning is the AIP for one narrow thing that we can effectively itemize or is it more abstract and asking for a lot of money to cover a broad range of aspects where the line item for the amount is subjective and questionable.
  • Based on the author. Who is asking for the amount? Is it a member of the Ape Foundation? An approved AIP author? A newcommer to the DAO?
  • Is it an AIP or an RFP? Not to purposefully plug AIP-401 but it stands to reason that this distinction will occur that when we do conduct another RFP we will need to associate a corresponding budget amount for it. Do we want to be beholden to a supermajority for something like that?
  • Leave it to the discretion of the Special Counsel?
  • Sliding scale of maximum amount before super majority for indivudal ideas/concepts (much like the first bullet point).

This is just a few that come to mind. I’m sure you could think of other criteria as well but even these above don’t seem like the perfect best fit for all (I am partial to the first one but even then I’m already thinking of ways to circumvent it).

If i may ask you @capetaintrippy, taking a step back. You are looking to solve a problem but first lets better understand what the problem you identified is. This AIP is in response to something in particular or a behavior of the DAO and maybe if we better understand where this AIP come from we can arrive at a solution that both satisfies what you want and could better define a solution for it.

Is it just that recent AIP’s as of lately? Is it in response to a particular AIP? Is it something that you have personally seen or feel passionate about? (These are just prompts and not meant to be antagonizing).

5 Likes

I replied to a thread, but I think the voices highlighting the ‘minority veto’ deadlocks might be an unforeseen edge case that could have a significant impact.

Looking at the situation raised last week by @kodama, what’s relevant isn’t just the approval rate, but also the awareness and involvement of enough community members to identify AIPs that aren’t aligned with the community’s values. The fact that this particular controversial AIP was brought to the public’s attention led to more thorough due diligence by all the voters.

With that in mind, maybe we should focus more on bringing AIPs above $1M into broader discussion to ensure no shenanigans slip through

6 Likes

Had another thought, and this could apply both to AIPs over or under $1M.

Instead of super majority rules, could we cap the voting power of ANY single wallet / delegation?

Basically, 1 $APE = 1 vote up to X votes (cap can be determined via the community).

This still incentivizes delegations to amass $APE to grow their voting power in the DAO (benefitting ApeCoin) while also seeking to balance the voting power across the delegations.

Thoughts?

1 Like

appreciate the feedback. taking this into consideration.

1 Like

appreciate the feedback and afraid all this would lead to is groups splitting their wallets.

Thanks for the feedback @yatsiu. very valid points. I am revisiting the number.

I have always loved this idea. Great idea and points.

appreciate the feedback and while I agree there are no perfect solutions here, I do believe we can improve from our current situation. Are you for leaving at 50/50 or do you think lowering my number and finding better protection from the veto vote would be a better balance?

I am also thinking on other ways to improve this which increases total voter participation in a more democratic way.

1 Like

appreciate the feedback and questions. This is in response to the large voting blocks at the top that are out of balance with voter participation in our DAO. I am also, as are others, thinking of ways to increase voter participation. This is a problem as well. For now, I have heard loud and clear from community members, we should not be in a place where the few can push through large amounts without greater support in the DAO. I also understand your other questions and can sum it up with… where do we stop or where else might we apply this rule?

3 Likes

Fair. Unless the number is so low it becomes too burdensome to play that game.

Agreed with the intent behind the idea. Will keep giving it some thought.

1 Like

I wish I had a better answer or could tell you what the proper solution is.

I think we need more data and a better understand of the situation at hand. It feels we are all flying high on emotions and need to be more methodical and scientific with how to approach this. I mentioned in another thread a breakdown of voting, and of delegate information would be useful to help present to the community.

I tried to start working on something similar but Snapshot doesn’t export the most prudent of information related to this kind of subject matter.

1 Like

I just think in practice that what this does is require the two major voting blocks to agree for any larger AIP to pass. So if one block wishes to block the other, they can do so every single time under this new system. I don’t think that’s an improvement as sometimes these large requests have a real opportunity to push the DAO forward, but given the size of the ask, they can inherently be a bit more controversial.

The real solution is getting more $APE holders to actually care enough to vote. I’d rather see ideas focused on incentivizing the vote, instead of adding more politics (not the right word, but this supermajority solution comes directly from US politics, and it’s been gamified and abused there constantly) on top of the voting system.

5 Likes

I like the direction this is headed, however there’s a big elephant in the room here on this definition of ‘broader community support’

What it really means is, without both of the top 2 largest wallets support, then every larger proposal auto-fails

Should this pass, then 100% of power ends up with the 2 current largest wallets, and 0% of power remains with the community whatsoever

I haven’t done the deep math on it, but I’m pretty sure at high level this is correct or at least mostly correct

4 Likes

I like this, and it’s a step in the right direction, it also leaves room for larger wallets to simply spread votes out across multiple wallets and I don’t have a solution on hand for that. It’s a topic which has come up on numerous occasions in other DAOs I work with

Same challenge arises when considering quadratic voting too

1 Like

This seems like a healthy brainstorm…would love to hear @capetaintrippy’s add on this if willing :pray:

Is the primary problem which this AIP intends to resolve;

  • Too much treasury spending, so to curbing how much of treasury is spent overall?
  • Not enough community unity on proposals, so Introducing more hurdles to siphon out proposals with only mediocre support?
  • Too easy for larger proposals to pass, so introducing more hurdles to cull those with insufficient commitment levels?
  • Too many large proposals passed in a short amount of time, so this would in act as a cooldown timer?
  • Lack of accountability on previously passed AIPs of higher funds, so creating an environment where more work is needed by authors in order to pass their proposals?
  • Other?

In the nature of community brainstorming, would love to hear other peoples take on this or addition to this list :point_up:

4 Likes

maybe we can open up a brainstorming/idea session, how voting rules can be adapted generally, so we address several weaknesses and dont miss important points buy just jumping to this voting rule.

some ideas:

  • different voting requirements for different budget tiers
  • qualified voting majorities for higher tiers, like
  • different % FOR votes measured in $ape needed for different tiers (e.g. only 25% FOR if 0 budget needed, 50% for normal AIPs, 66% for 1M+, 75% for 2 or 3M+)
  • additional majority of # of FOR wallets (independent from held $ape), for higher tiers
  • minority VETO vote = 25% of wallets and/or $ape value AGAINST → doesnt stop an AIP, but sends it into another round of discussion and the writer needs to explain better certain keypoints like budget details, spending plan, revenue estimation, details on timing
  • a general “payout rule” should be that only parts of funds are paid out based on milestones reached
  • introduce a new VETO system to pause future payouts of running AIPs, if x% of wallets call VETO and demand better milestones achievement explanations (in general we need better acountability of AIP runners AFTER an AIP is approved, so ppl are kept accountable for the success of AIPs)

thx trippy for bringing this on the way!

5 Likes

Hi @capetaintrippy,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.

  • If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.

  • A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.

  • Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?

We look forward to hearing from you.

-@Facilitators