Hopefully discussions will propagate virally though the DIscord channels. People are more concerned about the value of their collectibles than on DAO governance mechanisms. There appear to be diverging interests about voting between short-term tactical outcomes and long-term strategic management. Like everything else, yo! 
3 Likes
I haven’t read all of this, but in case no one has mentioned this yet. I remember hearing the devs talk about badges that gotchis could earn going to townhall dao votes. What kind of effect could that have? Would it be out of hand if every badge gave your gotchi a 2X vote multiplier? it would be quite a great way to give active participants more voting power, but 2X every badge would get out of hand very quickly. if it started off as 100ghst voting power youd have like 100,000,000 voting power after 20 badges lol. could be decent. tyranny of the active
2 Likes
If a badge mechanism will ever exist it can be structured a way such that every badge increments the number of GHST of a percentage, but this is not a forwarding mechanism.
For example if 2 badges multiply the GHST of 1% (speaking about the voting power obviously) and we have 100 GHST (the base for calculation) we will have 100 * 1% + 100 * 1% + 100 base GHST.
We finally have 102 GHST which can be considered a great deal if badges will be introduced.
1 Like
That makes a lot more sense. Would be good if they gave a little more percent tbf. If it’s just adding on it wouldn’t get too out of hand when you think that some people have thousands upon thousands of ghst
2 Likes
Some very interesting ideas in here. It would be great if you gave a couple examples showing how voting power would be calculated for different types of players. For example OG Aalice who spent all her GHST on Aavegotchis and wearables, Bob the GHST Whale , and Caasper the Sacrificer (optimizing for high XP).
2 Likes
Examples are essential. It’s still a work in progress. The issues of balancing voting power are completely different for my proposed dual voting scheme - one for GHST assets, the other Gotchi/BRS assets - than for a unified voting scheme that is based on some type of GHST/Gotchi conversion formula. The quadratic/double square root voting system based on Penrose/Banzhaf can be applied to either scheme.
Many contributors to this topic have proposed ways to transform Gotchi assets into GHST equivalents, none of which seem particularly workable to me in the often volatile crypto marketplace. But the dual voting scheme also has challenges because some AGIP decisions could significantly affect both asset classes but in different ways; it may not be possible classify an issue as being a purely GHST asset or Gotchi asset decision.
I’m doing thought experiments for a scheme in which Gotchi citizens holding both asset classes (which presumably many do) must choose which asset class to vote exclusively for a given “crossover” issue proposal. I’m hoping that other folks will suggest ways to flesh out the concept.
I downloaded the snapshot AGIP 4 & 5 vote spreadsheets and applied the double square root method to see what those vote results would have looked like. I can clean those up and share them shortly.
1 Like
I do think in some way that owned wearables should contribute to a user’s voting power. What do you think about using the “base” Maall price of the wearable to factor into an Aavegotchi’s voting power? In that case, the max benefit would only be 10,000 GHST, even if a voter spent much more on it in the Baazaar.
There’s a not-insignificant issue with disenfranchisement of players who have spent a lot of Aavegotchis and wearables, which as depleted their voting power. This needs to be addressed and has always been on the roadmap for AavegotchiDAO voting power calculations in some form.
4 Likes
To be honest, I had always thought that this would have been a common measure instigated (I mean that 100 GHST was the base value of the 'Gotchi, plus the stake be it LINK or YFI or USDT, plus wearables). Hopefully the invested value earns it’s own metric of value to the voting system, or can devise one that makes sense.
Meanwhile, as we wait for the day until there are Aavegotchi owners are on Mars!
2 Likes
I support this idea 100% as well.
People bringing more GHST into the ecosystem and spending it on various things should be rewarded with voting power. This will also incentivize more commerce and in turn more fees generated by the bazaar.
The simplest way would be to peg wearables to mall/base prices as this would keep the relative voting power in line. (A rolling average would also be fine, just a bit more complex).
I also support giving voting power to people based on the # of gotchis they hold!
5 Likes
I think this is the only neutral / objective way to determine the voting power for wearables. Also 100% better than having none at all.
1 Like
Is there a SigPro for adding voting power to wearables based on their Maall price?
Should the bonus be applied to all of the items held by the voter? What about the ones held by their various Aavegotchis?
This will be a fairly complicated Snapshot strategy (and later, onchain strategy) to setup, so need to know the nitty gritty details of it.
2 Likes
would like to see that as its a nice commitment to those actually interacting with the game
1 Like
Nice idea.
Holders have the right to vote.
1 Like
What are your thoughts on giving gotchi a voting weight of 300 GHST, which is what the ape tax was? I don’t know if it could incentivize holding/buying/keeping them. It seems like a soft way to get users that can’t shell out thousands for a competitive gotchi to just buy in for the experience which is what we are working towards in the realm and minigames.
3 Likes
You’re on the right track with this. It would be great to reward people who are actually contributing to the ecosystem with voting power and make them a part of governance.
I would take this proposal further, because I feel those who are buying Gotchis and wearables are just as much (and maybe more) staked in the value of GHST as those who are only holding the token.
Rather than 100 per Aavegotchi:
I think a solid way to reflect a users “skin in the game” (which is essentially what a DAO is measuring) is to use Rarity Score as a vote weight. This way, even a basic Gotchi is worth at least 350 GHST. Someone who has spent a lot more time and money collecting wearables and rare Gotchi would have even more weight. I would even be in favor of a multiplier to reflect the fact that a 600 rarity Gotchi is a lot more expensive than a 400 rarity one.
This system can’t really be abused either, because the way to abuse it would be to buy a bunch of Gotchi and wearables and heck, if you do that you earned those votes.
6 Likes
Aavegotchis enjoying a voting power determined by their Rarity Score after wearables are equipped seems great.
More reflective of their value, way more than a simple 100 GHST base, and having the wearables that are equipped means you may need to put on your “sunday best” in order to maximize voting.
That sounds like fun. Get my strongest voting clothes on… maybe down the road its not even my highest BRS clothes but we could mint clothes with specific voting power bonuses. Whoa
7 Likes
Love it. Simply genius.
1 Like
Actually, I do like the idea of what was discussed in the community meeting of BRS x Kinship multiplier. That’s a culmination of monetary investment and time investment to earn a combined value in voting power.
3 Likes
What about using closed+open portals for voting? also there was an idea about using portals and aavegotchis to farm for frens.
1 Like
DAO unified voting involving all Aavegotchi asset classes
I personally favor a two tier voting system, for Gotchi asset holders and GHST asset holders. Many DAO forum contributors, however, advocate for single class of voting in which all token holders - ERC20 (GHST), ERC721 (Gotchis) and ERC1155 (Wearables) token holders - participate in unified DAO voting with proportional voting power. This article is a proposal for such a unified voting scheme.
Rationale
Of the top non-DAO Polygon GHST token holders, comprising over 80% of total GHST circulating on Polygon, only one token holder owned an ERC721 Gotchi NFT. DAO Core voting appears to never have exceeded 30% of GHST circulating on Polygon.
Based on a 3/19/2021 analysis, there were 77 Gotchi holders having 10 or more of the 4922 Gotchis summoned as of that date, constituting about 18.3% of Gotchi holdings. The largest holder had 142 Gotchis, about 2.3%, and the median for the top 10 Gotchi holders was 15 Gotchis. These large Gotchi holders do not appear to have voting power disproportionate to the remaining Gotchi holders.
An equitable voting system must represent the interests of GHST investors, who provide liquidity to the Aavegotchi project, as well as the interests of those invested in the NFT ecosystem by way of their Gotchi and wearables holdings, their gameplay and rarity farming efforts. All these investors have “skin in the game”; the challenge is how to fairly apportion voting power based on these different interests and commitments.
Quadratic Voting
I believe that the best way to achieve unified proportional voting is to use a quadratic voting method. A quadratic voting scheme increases the “cost” to vote quadratically, i.e., by the square of the number of voting units. So if 1 vote costs 1 GHST then
2 votes costs 4 GHST
3 votes costs 9 GHST
4 votes costs 16 GHST
etc.
Voting weight decreases as the square root of total voting tokens. As example, lets take a population of 10 where 20% of the population controls 75% of the voting tokens:
No. Tokens
50
25
10
7
3
1
1
1
1
1
The “one token one vote” system allocates 75 votes to the top 2 token holders and 25 votes to the remaining 8 token holders.
A quadratic allocation, based on the sum of the square of tokens, would allocate voting power as follows:
Voting Power
7.07
5.00
3.16
2.65
1.73
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Under the quadratic scheme, the top two token holders have 12.07 votes (49.05%) while the bottom 8 token holders have 12.54 votes (50.95%). A minority voter in the bottom 8 token holders can influence the majority outcome of the vote, which is ultimately the proportional voting power goal of quadratic voting. To learn more about quadratic voting in DAO governance a good introduction is https://hackernoon.com/in-praise-of-the-double-square-root-voting-system-for-blockchain-governance-977fa37f62cd
Unified Voting with all Aavegotchi Assets
In a unified, blended voting scheme quadratic voting would also be applied to ERC721 “Gotchi” tokens and ERC1155 “Wearables” tokens. I think the best way to weight Gotchi and Wearables voting is by the Basic Rarity Score (BRS) or equivalent of all “engaged” ERC721 and ERC1155 assets. By this I mean summoned and equipped Gotchis, claimed and owned wearables/consumables, and the highest BRS valued Gotchi in any opened portals.
All wearables and consumables would be tallied by the absolute value of their “stats”, regardless of type: NRG, BRN, AGG, SPK, EYS, EYC, and Kinship value and XP value for consumables, scaled by the square root of the BRS Bonus value of each Rarity Type. Unopened Portals would be valued at 100 GHST each. Spirit Force maTokens, LP staked tokens, FRENS holdings and raffle tickets do not contribute to voting power.
For each Gotchi ERC721 token a bonus scaler, based on the experience level of the Gotchi, would be applied to the BRS value of the Gotchi according to the following formula:
Final Gotchi vote weight = BRS * ( 1+ ( INT(Level/3) * .03) )
Using the experience level as an adjustment would recognize and reward the long term commitment of that Gotchi token to the Aavegotchi ecosystem.
For example, the final voting weight of a Gotchi with BRS 495 (including all equipped wearables and rarity bonuses) at Level 20 would calculate as
Voting weight = 495 * ( 1+ (INT(20/3) *.03) = 495 * (1 + INT(6.66) *.03) = 495 * (1 + 0.18) = 584.1
Wearables would have an equivalent BRS value, based on the sum of the absolute values of their published stats, scaled by the square root of the BRS Bonus for the Rarity Type of the wearable. Here are some examples:
Value of Eth T-Shirt = ABS(BRN -1) * SQRT(Common BRS Bonus)
= (1) * SQRT(1)
= 1
Value of Agent Shades= (ABS(NRG -1)+ABS(SPK +2)) * SQRT(Rare BRS Bonus)
= (1 + 2) * SQRT(5)
= 3 * 2.2361
= 6.7083
Value of Parasol = (ABS(NRG +1)+ABS(AGG -1)+ABS(SPK -3)) * SQRT(Mythical BRS Bonus)
= (1 + 1 + 3) * SQRT(20)
= 5 * 4.4721
= 22.3605
Value of XP Potion = SQRT(20)
= 4.4721
The total voting power for a Polygon wallet holding GHST, Gotchis and Wearables would be
SQRT (GHST tokens + 100 * #Unopened Portals) + SQRT ( SUM(Scaled ERC721 BRS values) + SUM(OpenPortal Max BRS values) + SUM(Scaled ERC1155 values) )
For a wallet containing 400 GHST, 1 Gotchi BRS 503/Level 3, 1 Gotchi BRS 493/Level 7, 1 Santa Hat, 1 Sushi Piece, and 1 Greater Kinship potion, the voting power would be
= SQRT(400) + SQRT ( ( (503 * (1+INT(3/3) * .03)) + (493 * (1+INT(7/3) * .03) ) ) +
( ((ABS(AGG -1)+ABS(SPK -2)) * SQRT(5)) + (ABS(SPK -4) * SQRT(10)) + SQRT(10) ) )
= 20 + SQRT ( ( 518.09 + 522.58 ) + ( 3 * 2.2361 + 4 * 3.1623 + 3.1623) )
= 20 + SQRT (1063.1896)
= 20 + 32.6066
= 52.6066
Squaring this voting power shows that it is the equivalent of voting about 2,767.45 GHST.
So as not to overweight the voting power of ERC721 and ERC1155 assets it is essential that the BRS equivalents are SUMMED before the square root is taken, rather than summing the individual BRS square root values. Otherwise the BRS voting power will be disproportionate.
For example, when applied to the Core AGIP4 vote of 3/23/2021, the total GHST quadratic voting power would have been 58,233.4354 votes rather than 6,528,340.3030 GHST votes:
By contrast, the total quadratic voting power on 3/19/2021 for all 4922 summoned Gotchis, based upon the scheme proposed above, would have been 58,284.8196 votes (this is without factoring in the impact on voting power of ERC1155 Wearables BRS equivalents). But the sum of individual Gotchi token BRS square root values as voting power would total about 110,871 votes - this would disproportionally overweight the voting power of the Gotchi assets.
Of course, all Gotchi token holders likely would not vote in any particular election, but if they did all vote then, under the proposed scheme, their voting power would be more or less equivalent to the voting power of the GHST token holders that voted in AGIP4, for example.
Other Issues
Issues that I do not address in this article include those of voting quorums and vote differentials. The double square root voting scheme has a formula for determining the “voting threshold” for passage of yes/no votes in quadratic voting systems. This formula approaches a 50% passage threshold after the number of the voting units exceeds just a few thousand as it approaches infinity. Most DAO voting schemes establish a quorum as a percentage of the circulating tokens and voting differentials for the passage of single and multiple choice votes.
There is also a call in some quarters for a permanent “blank” option on all DAO ballots, the equivalent of “none of the above” or a protest vote, which would table any ballot in which enough voters express an unwillingness to vote on the issue sufficient to prevent achieving the established vote differentials. I leave these issues to other Gotchi citizens.
Summary
Democracry is messy and no voting scheme is perfect. One-token-one-vote systems can easily lead to plutocracry. Quadratic voting systems reapportion voting power to provide minority voters some influence on the outcome rather than being electorally irrelevant. I believe that the unified voting of all asset classes, as described above, with quadratic vote weighting, is a reasonable approach for proportional voting that eventually can be implemented in the DAO contract governance functions.
This analysis was done heuristically with brute force data extracts because I don’t have sufficient blockchain programming skills to extract raw token data from the Polygon blockchain. I welcome additional analysis of token holdings to better understand the issues of proportional representation as well as any comments or criticism about this proposal.
13 Likes