I am considering a proposal that would require a super majority (2/3) in favor where there is a significant cost to implement or where the proposal changes the structure or voting rules of the DAO.
I’m also thinking that we should require a fee where there is a very large cost to implement to discourage frivolous money grabs (Ape Water anyone?)
Hi. Discussion on this idea has already been taking place here: Changing Voting Pass / Fail Threshold - #31 by br00no
EDIT: The fee part is NOT being discussed elsewhere to best of my knowledge, only the super-majority idea.
Most people dont vote
That’s fine. When I say supermajority I mean supermajority of voters per each AIP. So for any proposal that meets certain conditions we’re looking for 67% inclined.
According to the voting we only need above 50 in Favour VS against, stupid abstain complicates it
Hi @secengjeff,
Your topic will be automatically closing in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received, or do you wish to extend community discussion for a further 7 days?
If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.
We look forward to hearing from you.
-Amplify
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
Thank you @secengjeff for your ideas. A moderator will get in touch with the author to draft the AIP in the appropriate template. Once the AIP is drafted and meets all the DAO-approved guidelines, the proposal will be posted on Snapshot for live official voting at: Snapshot
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. @secengjeff please see your messages for the next steps.
-Amplify
Nice, one more thing can be added that is a reward or make people vote more often as well?
Less rewards = quality participation and voting.
More rewards = in it for the rewards.
We already have uninformed voting, and rewards systems reeks of an MLM vibe while giving regulators easy targets.
On the topic of supermajority voting, there’s something a bit odd about this sentence:
“The voting period has closed for this proposal and it has been accepted with a 46.21% pass rate.”
I understand the role the “Abstain” function plays here, but this nevertheless gives me pause.
Whoa, are you saying that Abstain allows a majority vote to win even if it’s < 50%? That’s very wrong IMO.
Glad to see others care about this.
Not everyone understood that Abstain wouldn’t count. Probably few did. It seems self-evident, but the ramifications were not discussed. Instead the focus was in part on rewarding - specifically rewarding uninformed voting.
I did vote In Favor of “Abstain”, admittedly in ignorance with the presumption it’d count so that AIPs wouldn’t pass < 50% which itself is a terribly low bar in any case.
Last week we narrowly missed - per a last-minute whale vote against - a $2.2 million proposal passing with a little more than 40% In Favor.
This week a $1 million proposal passed with less than 50% In Favor.
And currently there are numerous proposals in progress toward votes that will cost far more, with no real oversight, that in part seek to circumvent the AIP process so things will get funded with no vote at all via a Treasury with zero audit processes or oversight in place or proposed.
Again the focus is on rewarding, not on what can and will go wrong, and again people are presuming it’ll all make sense.
That’s as “very wrong” as it gets, and it’s exactly why IRL politics and budgets are the way they are. Yet that’s the system we’re copying exactly.
The Law Of Unintended Consequences is as real and relevant as can be, and one might reasonably wonder if indeed those consequences are actually unintended.
Yes, so long as the “In Favor” votes outnumber the “Against” votes, it’s all good.
The “Abstain” button, which I initially voted in favor of in hopes of fostering greater voting activity, is now something I’d strongly consider repealing, especially in light of proposed supermajority voting.
FWIW, I did amend my Idea for super-majority vote requirement to change fundamental tenets of the DAO, several days ago or more, and DM’d the mod to that effect.
I think I did it correctly and await the next step, which would be Draft phase where anyone is more than encouraged to add input into the AIP. It isn’t “my” AIP, it’s ours.
Meanwhile arguably the many Working Group proposals - one more time… without any oversight in place or proposed, funded by a DAO without any audit oversight in place or proposed - do in fact totally alter fundamental tenets of the DAO and its processes.
We don’t even have a defined and agreed-upon Mission yet, but need to quickly appoint highly-paid Working Groups in order to carry out that non-Mission. No responsible person would invest in such a thing, but when its “free money” few will care until too late.
Seeds of our first AIP Amendment?
I’ll start working on a draft.
The “46.21% pass rate” is incorrectly reported by the voting summary on snapshot.
If you total the in-favor and the against votes for that proposal you get 6,371,983.84. So the correct percentages when you ignore the abstain numbers are:
In Favor: 3,865,650.80 which is 60.67%
Against: 2,506,333.04 which is 39.33%
It is important to keep the Abstain option for voting, because this allows someone with a conflict that should not be voting either “for” or “against” a vote to have their DAO voting duty recorded.
I do think in reporting the abstain votes should not be counted in the “for” or “against” percentages when stating whether a vote has passed.
I looked on snapshot’s github and there is a “Ignore abstain votes in basic voting results” setting for the voting results. It seems like that setting is not flipped on to ignore the abstain votes in the summary calculations.
We should ask the team managing snapshot to turn the Ignore Abstain in summary setting on, so that the results are easier to understand without having to manually do the calculations.