Edit 20.11.21 - 23:30: Miro | Online Whiteboard for Visual Collaboration
Hi everyone! Since we touched upon this topic briefly in one of the last DAO-talks but never followed up on it, here is the thread for everyone’s two cents regarding our voting mechanism, structure, and processes.
As you might have guessed, it is a rather complex subject. Therefore I’ll try to structure it as best as possible so that we can figure out how best to tackle it. So please, bear with me
TL;DR: What are your ideas regarding our proposal and voting system? What rules do we need to have in place for proposals to be voted on? Should there exist different criteria for proposals, e.g., different voting times for proposals with a higher impact, etc.?
Participation in general and the chance to participate in a vote is crucial for the DAO’s legitimacy. Therefore we should have an agreed-upon process for how to set up/structure our voting system.
As I understand, right now, Discourse is the platform where everything DAO-related happens. Furthermore, the voting mechanism seems to be ‘Permissioned Relative Majority’; the results are presented in the following Public DAO Meeting and executed afterward (if the proposal passed).
Here is a short overview of how things are right now:
- Any DAO member can post a proposal.
- Any DAO member can comment on a proposal.
- Any DAO member can vote on a proposal.
- Non-DAO members can see any proposal.
- Non-DAO members can not create a proposal.
- Non-DAO members can not comment on a proposal.
- Non-DAO members can not vote on a proposal.
- There is no agreed-upon timeframe for a proposal to run.
- The voting system is not quorum-based.
For me, especially 8 and 9 are issues we should address sooner rather than later. Another question would be whether we should stay with Discourse and see how viable it is short to mid-term. Or if we should start from scratch and decide on the proper system/mechanism first (see below).
Personally, I think Discours and how things progress is the right way for us, at least for now, since it is a system that is already available and with a few tweaks it can provide everything we need. Plus, if we continue this route, there is no need to spend resources on implementing another mechanism.
However, from experience, I can say that the requirements might quickly change as soon as more people participate in the decision-making. So re-thinking or at least having in mind that there are different solutions available is advisable to not run into a tight spot later down the road.
Here are some voting mechanisms that DAOs use today (subjective & not complete):
Permissioned relative majority
Relative majority voting mechanism compares the total number of votes of those supporting and those against to arrive at a decision. Permissioned means proposals need to be sponsored by DAO members to be voted on, which, in theory, limits the risk of potentially ‘dangerous’ proposals (that could be malicious; e.g., one person can drain the DAO’s funds while others aren’t looking).
Projects: MetaCartel Ventures, Raid Guild and DAOhaus.
Token based quorum voting
Quorum voting requires a certain threshold of voters for a proposal to pass (e.g. 70% quorum, which means 70% of voting is needed for a vote to pass). Once this threshold has been met, whichever decision has more votes wins. Without reaching the quorum threshold, proposals fail.
The threshold has typically been based on the total number of votes, although some protocols (like Compound governance) have a quorum threshold only for the votes in favor of a proposal passing instead (20% quorum, in this case, would mean 20% of voting power voting positively for a proposal to be considered for passing).
Projects: Compound, Curve, and Kleros.
Holographic Consensus (HC) was a concept spearheaded by DAOstack. This voting mechanism associates a prediction market with each proposal. Predictors can stake funds for or against a proposal they believe will pass or fail. If they predict correctly, they benefit financially. Proposals that are predicted to pass are ‘boosted’, and voting switches from 50% quorum to relative majority, making the barrier to pass proposals much lower.
Projects that have used this: DXdao, NecDAO and Prime DAO.
High level: Conviction voting is a voting mechanism in which people stake their voting power on proposals, and over time, those proposals accumulate enough votes to pass.
Projects: 1Hive, Panvala, and Commons Stack.
My suggestions for the immediate future would be to address and discuss the way votes on a proposal are handled and to have a look at:
- Should we have an obligatory discussion thread before a proposal gets posted? Like this post. (Obvsl. not suited for ‘urgent’ votes)
- Should there be proposal tiers so that the runtime of the voting is tied to the impact the outcome has? (e.g. amount of $GRAPE)
- How long should the minimum voting time on a proposal be?
- How many people have to participate in a vote to consider it viable/acceptable? Although we use the mechanism of permissioned relative majority, implementing a threshold could be a good idea.
Because I’m fairly new to the DAO I was a bit hesitant to create this post at first but I think it can’t hurt to talk things through. As it stands, I simply don’t know enough (of you) but I’m excited to find out. That’s also the reason why I didn’t post my preferred ‘solution’.
Maybe there already is a plan in place that I’m not aware of, then please, consider this post obsolete. If not, it’s a start.
Either way, I’m impressed with the overall energy in this community and it’s great to see how invested people are. For now, I’m really curious about your ideas and opinions and especially the different angles you approach this topic.