I’d love to see D_D’s snapshot voting weighted more equitably, whether via a smoothing function or some anti-whale strategy. My view is that, in general, active members with more context should have greater governance weight, so I’m not advocating for a return to 1 person, 1 vote.
I’m not well-versed in the options available. For those interested in this idea, what strategies would you recommend the community consider and why? Don’t skip the why part.
I’ll suggest that a step in the right direction is better than no step at all, so bonus points if your suggestion can be easily implemented by pulling in one of the many existing snapshot strategies.
Temperature check: what’s your preference for D_D snapshot votes?
- 1 person, 1 vote
- 1 CODE token, 1 vote (status quo)
- another strategy (smoothing curve, anti-whale, etc.)
Pleased to see the topic being discussed, thanks @wolovim
Would encourage us to collectively tread carefully though, there are subtle externalities to these choices that aren’t obvious such as 2 below.
I voted “another strategy”
- I believe there is value in recognising contribution with elevated governance
- 1 person one 1 vote with an ERC-20 is introduces high risk sybil attacks unless there is proof of person-hood involved as anyone can send tokens to may addresses and vote. I’d argue this is far worse than having whales the DAO at least knows.
- 1 person 1 vote means existing token exchanges (such as Gitcoin) and any future ones we might want to do less meaningful.
As well as the Type of voting, if we’re considering change I’d encourage us to look at more than just the way voting weights are allocated to a binary choice. When all votes are Yes/No these voting strategies have far less impact on outcomes as the choice is still Yes/No. They have a much bigger impact on votes with multiple choices especially when connected with strategies like ranked choice voting.
Not an expert here. I would LOVE perspective from @Bobbay on this as he has worked in focused governance roles across many DAOs.
Pulled the voting types on Snapshot’s docs into a table here for easier reference:
|Each user can select one of three options: For, Against, Abstain.
The votes cast on the Abstain choice are counted in calculating if the necessary quorum has been reached for a proposal to pass.
|Results are easy to interpret and hard to contest.
|Choices are predefined and cannot be edited.
|Single Choice Voting
|Each user can select only one option. The results will reflect these votes as percentages of the total voting power of all voting participants cast on the specific choice.
Ideal for choosing one option from many.
|Most simple and common voting type which is easy to set up and use.
|Voters can pick only one option.
|Each user can spread their voting power across any number of choices, from one to all. Their voting power will be divided between their chosen options according to how much weight they attribute to each option by increasing or decreasing the voting power fraction.
|Allows voters to express support for more than one option and specify how much they support each of them.
|Requires more time and adds complexity to the voting process.
|Each user can select (approve) any number of choices, each selected choice will receive equal voting power, i.e. if user selects two choices, each choice will receive the total voting power of the user.
|Ask for approval of several decisions in a single proposal.
|There is no way to manifest how much you support each choice. It’s a simple yes or no.
|Snapshot’s Quadratic Voting (QV) type goes beyond the conventional approach of simply calculating the square root of each voter’s voting power. It presents a more nuanced and democratic framework for decision-making.
One of the main features of our QV type is its emphasis on the number of individual voters rather than the size of their voting power. By doing so, it ensures that every voice counts, thereby enhancing collective decision-making and preventing power concentration.
Additionally, Snapshot’s QV type provides voters with the flexibility to distribute their voting power across multiple choices. This feature allows for a more precise representation of a voter’s diverse opinions, all without any additional cost.
Drawing key principles from the Quadratic Funding model, our QV type fosters greater participation and effectively balances influence. It represents a significant advancement over simpler voting mechanisms that rely on basic square root calculations of voting power.
|Dilutes the whales’ voting power in favor of smaller holders. Individuals will matter more than the number of tokens.
|his voting type needs to be accompanied by a Sybil-resistance mechanism that prevents whales from splitting funds across different wallets.