[Discussion] On-chain Voting for GRAPE DAO

DAO
1

As many of you know, we’ve begun testing out Solana Labs governance program

We’ve started a vote to see how much GRAPE is active for voting. This will help us set a quorum that is realistically achievable, yet not too low that any vote can pass without proper concensus

You can find the vote here

We have taken a unique approach to governance here; one that hopes to emulate our existing DAO application and subDAO structures. This is different than most other DAOs as they are purely plutocratic and use community tokens only to make votes. Here, we aspire to assign the Council tokens to highly active members and then use a separate activity metric to add more voted weighting to the community tokens. In the short-term, this activity metric does not exist and we rely on the Council token even more.

There are 2 tokens in this system – a Council token and a Community token. GRAPE is the community token

Council token members = people who can make draft proposals, and vote on council proposals
Community token members = people who can vote on community proposals

Council proposals = changes to proposal process, addition/removal of council members, and creation of community proposals
Community proposals = control of treasury wallet

Discussions for proposals happen in discourse
Council members discuss proposals - then require a minimum of X council tokens to create a community vote

THINGS TO DISCUSS MORE -

The Council token cannot be revoked or clawed back. If we keep this model, we need a way to incentivize a Council token holder to return it when they are no longer active. If a large portion of Council token holders go inactive, it would be impossible to reach quorum.

How can we allocate Council tokens and how would we get them back?

Right now we see 1.5 million GRAPEs for votes. IMO that is a huge win for decentralization, but also a concern that such a small amount is currently active. It could be an issue later when the remaining GRAPE becomes active. What do we set our current quorum to?

I have my own opinions on the above - but in the effort to not influence discussion ill share more on those later

5 Likes
2

Is there a way to have an expiration date in the SC of the token or NFT that grants voting power? Do we have a SC programmer?
alternatively, it would be hard to collateralize because that gets into another host of issues in defining or attempting to define the value of said council token…just to begin with.

Before setting quorum, perhaps it would be beneficial to draft a proposal that will actually impact all GRAPE holders (such as increasing/decreasing emissions). 1.5 million is great, but that it was said this vote had no impact…curious to see what the numbers would be if they were in fact impacted by a community vote.
The purpose of this would be to beta test what type of turnout we could get, but also find a proposal that isn’t too impactful but still worht paying attention to.

3

SC token cant expire. As much as possible, we need to face that reality and figure out a model where the holder of the token has a good reason to give it back when they stop engaging/voting

Regarding a quorum vote – I totally agree with your idea. Would be very active if there was a vote related to emissions :smiley:

1 Like
4

Could it not be configured to become null if it’s voted out by GRAPE holders?

5

Null is possible. It’s the quorum part that becomes tricky…it still counts towards quorum. Having an increasing stack of inactive tokens will force us to issue them faster than we would otherwise

1 Like
7

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.