Improve the DAO

I believe that most of the users vote for XP.
I believe this was a good idea, as Aavegotchi is one of the most active DAO.
And, I believe this has a major flaw.

What if I told you that most of the voters can be easily manipulated?
Here’s how:

First, you post in the DAO Forum as one should.
An infinitesimal minority of DAO participants argue, talk about pros and cons.
You can act like you care about that and take some into account (but you really don’t have to change your perfect plan).
Now that you officially went through a DAO forum, you can raise the sig prop.
This is where manipulation happens.

As soon as you raise the sig prop, you and your whalish peers instant-vote on what you want out of this sig prop.
Now comes the XP flaw.

The “casual user” connects and sees the new sig prop and has to vote because of XP.
He never heard of this new sig prop. He barely reads the small summary and sees the current votes.
Enter the 3rd player. Herd Mentality.

Our “casual user” sees that one of the options is at 98% vote and thinks to himself “huh, everyone seems to think this is a good idea and they probably spent time thinking about this”.
The other thought is:
“They are invested in this project, they won’t do something that would affect it badly, for sure!”.
The XP flaw doesn’t stop here.

Because of it, we’re surely reaching quorum.
You can check past sig props, they always reach quorum.
Now what? Now it’s a core prop.

You repeat the same strat and vote as soon as the core prop is up.
The “casual user” will think even less.
I mean, voters already agree on the same option AND it already went through sig prop, reached quorum with +80% for this option.
This core prop is just a formality.

Voilà, you just changed the project how you wanted.

I believe one solution is allowing voting power delegation with XP distribution to the user delegating his voting power.

Entities that can receive Voting Power should put their candidature up and must be chosen in conjunction with PC and the DAO.

The amount of Voting Power an entity can have should be limited. I would say up to 1M GHST (FYI Last core prop received 19M GHST Votes). And the list can grow as overall voting power grows.

Yes overall we would have less individual voters.
We will be trading quantity for quality.

We could also, just ideas:

  • Add some slashing mechanism if the entity doesn’t vote
  • Request it to be a multisig
  • Be doxxed to PC

Last but not least, those entities could be used for more validation down the line like approving / rejecting which NFT can be displayed on the gotchiverse.

As a reminder, voting power delegation exists in other DAOs like AAVE.
Last but not least, most voters don’t spend more than 5 minutes reading about a vote where entities must spend a lot of time reading and participating in DAO Forum.

I will update this main thread with what you think, pros, cons, and other ideas so that you don’t have to scroll through.

PS: I used the word “entity” in this post but clearly we need a cool name.



It’s like I’m reading a play-by-play of AGIP49

1 Like

A champion has emerged!!!

Keep going ser. Please.


I believe you just highlighted the flaw of all democracies/representative governments. :rofl: At least in our little world, one person ≠ one vote.

The major con with your proposal is people would just be lazy with their representatives. Oh “Player X” and I agree on most points, so I’m just going to vote what he votes. How is this any different than the problem you’re highlighting?

The issue is more with human psychology. Something like 85% of people are looking to be led vs take charge themselves.

The most invested people are going to invest the most time and energy into understanding the vote. If you remove the XP incentive, then there’s even less “liquidity” in the total votes and those pesky whales are going to have even more influence.

I would also disagree with the notion that you can just raise any prop, stack some votes, and kick back and win. I think it’s even slightly offensive, if I’m being honest. It takes tremendous effort and loads of discussion to effectively raise and have passed a sigprop.

I haven’t really seen your mastermind plan play out in the wild. Usually the original idea is refined and reshaped based on the will of the community. And by the time it hits sigprop, the vast majority of us are already at consensus.

I honestly believe the best way to influence the vote is to actually be active in the forum and Discord. Even smol bags can change the game mechanics if they present their case well (and this has happened many times). Ultimately the vast majority want the project to succeed and most people I’ve spoken to, whales especially, are rational players.


I don’t get this ref.

The problem I’m highlighting is that we’re forcing people to vote.

Watch it live:

How many voters do we have? How many people are in this forum? How many people read the never ending dao discussion channel?

Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to fix an existing problem.


Nobody is being forced to vote, but rather incentivised. The XP reward mechanism is why we boast one of the most active DAOs in crypto. With the new weighted voting requirement which is sure to pass, people can now vote 50/50 on things if they wish to abstain.

I will agree a few sigprops recently have been a bit rushed. However, if you actually look at the results of this snapshot, you’ll see your point is actually invalid. The herd isn’t just following the crowd as you say. If you remove the top one wallet from the vote, you’ll see the community is pretty much divided with 750k for and 450k against. And the second largest wallet is against the proposition.

This doesn’t look like to me that the whales all rushed out to stack the vote to push an agenda. Rather, I believe that top wallet is Yanik’s (could be mistaken), and it makes sense he would logically want more harvesting as he’s recently built out his estate.

What I mean is the best way to get changes made are to be active and bring up topics. A number of issues have been brought forth by members of the community who I don’t assume to be huge whales.

I’ve seen all sorts of people create discussion and bring things through to sigprop.

first let me say this is a breath of fresh air to see this kind of post coming from a gotchivault manager, it shows that you manage to see a problem with outside entities (or voting power in general) and want to be part of a solution !
I believe that the DAO needs to establish what kind of participation it values,
Does the dao want to have to cycle through topics with 100-200 different opinions before a decision is made ?
Is it sensible to have dao-meetings or other events decide on things without an official dao vote?
Do we want a team of selected(elected) people reviewing all topics before a vote is proposed ?
Do we value more speed of execution, engagement, or depth of discussion (some topics can be popular and have lots of voices in favor or against but lack content to make a good decision for the dao)
Im personally in favor of having some sort of registration and a code-of-conduct for vault-like (entities) services that somehow makes sure that the votes are being pondered/discussed within the entities and that the DAOs interests are taken in consideration , in the end of the day the entities the ecosystem now have are all working towards the sucess of the protocol, but vampire entities eventually will come and there should be a structure for the dao to lower their influence .
Something like "every time there is a smart contract holding assets the voting power related to those assets cant be leveraged in any way (meaning there should be a ratio of 1:1 for the assets being held and the voting power the entity has, something along the lines of an ideal stablecoin backing) as well as represent community views and be aligned with AavegotchiDaos’ mission
This could even be incentivised by the DAO, for example an yearly ghst budget for entity-events within the gotchiverse (promoting their services and valueing the entities that actually follow the guidelines)

Pure delegation could be a way of electing a few (active?) participants but for it to be an attractive solution those people would have to be rewarded/punished by the quality of their participation , which seems not very web3

As a final thought GHST should be king, and utility for voting on dao related topics must exist for our ecosystem token, therefore 1person 1vote isnt the way to go , having ghst rewards/slashing mechanics connected to dao participation will create mild animosities and promote small groups . End of the day we need to decide what does the DAO value and incentivise those decisions and decision promoters , we have GHST / DAI and XP to incentivise , XP is only valuable for a specific class of asset owners (gotchis…)
sorry for the lengthy comment and branching , the topic is complex and broad


The scenario you laid out is exactly how mark bullied AGIP49 through governance

Also, though not a solution, I always thought it strange there isn’t a mandatory ‘abstain’ option in voting


Now you can abstain by voting 50/50 and still collect your xp


Is it possible you are misconstruing the “follow the herd” mentality to just a lack of a strong opinion on certain topics?

We can’t expect everyone to have a strong or critical opinion on every topic this DAO discusses. However, when there are divisive issues, we’ve seen that the DAO can vote against ideas it doesn’t like.

I don’t think delegation is the answer. As a DAO, we should try to engage more people, not fewer. Telling people to click a delegate button and then tune out is not the wei.


This discussion on Avi shows how he used leverage to successfully attack multiple DAOs. He even used Aave to do it. We’re not big, but we are prominent…

1 Like

I want to really push back on this narrative. I’ve said this many times, but I’ll say it again here: this toxicity and targeted animosity against large stakeholders and builders is much more detrimental to our DAO than current inefficiencies we have in the voting process.

The reroll vote followed due process with discussion in the Discord DAO thread, followed by a formal thread post, followed by a dedicated slot at the DAO meeting and, finally, a signal proposal for formal consideration in the DAO. Per usual, “most of the feedback” on the DAO call does not represent stakeholder sentiment. You can imagine it is frustrating to attend events and DAO proceedings when constantly villainized, yet another example of why posts like this one are harmful to our DAO. It sews discord more than it fosters unity.

As we look at the votes for the re-roll, a diverse crew is in favor: Yanik/Orden, Egor/Metaguild, only half of the Vault managers, independent wallets that I don’t even recognize. Many whales are clearly not in favor. The Vault vote appears to neatly line up with the non-vault vote with less than a 2% difference between the two. The vote looks to fail which is completely fine.

All things considered, I think governance is working pretty well and we should be proud of that. We should not be proud of the rampant fearmongering and fingerpointing. We should also consider how we can make formal DAO calls/discussions more accurately represent voting power by attracting absent stakeholders.