Voting power for land plots

Gotchigang, it feels like it’s only been a few weeks but we’re already having our first land sale and floors are flying left, right and center! The Realm is coming, and with it a new challenge for our Aavegotchi DAO

Like any good homeowner’s association, I believe owning your own piece of land in the gotchiverse should come with lots of (annoying?) politics and voting rights, so I present here a simple proposal inspired by @FloorSweeper#2643 on discord.

Much like wearables and aavegotchis, the idea is that land should have a “floor amount” of voting power, so that even land owners who gave up their GHST fortunes to support the growing realm still have a say in the overall ecosystem.

Since every plot has a set size in pixels, the suggestion brought forward is to equal 1 pixel to 1 GHST worth of voting power.
This would mean a Humble plot has a voting power of 64 GHST
a Reasonable plot has a voting power of 256 GHST
and a Spacious plot has a voting power of 2048 GHST
These numbers are provisional and can of course be edited or discussed as we find final floor prices for the land sale.

Comments and suggestions welcome, good luck in the sale frens!

27 Likes

Sounds good to me. Maybe there are something im missing but why not. Maybe 2048 atm is too much?

2 Likes

I agree that its too much. The voting power of a land should be well below the floor price. I think we should hold off on this idea until we can see how prices move after more lands are released and REALM opens. It would not be prudent to grant significant voting power to a new speculative asset until that asset has had sufficient time for price discovery imo.

6 Likes

Would this voting power represent Voting power used towards AGIP DAO proposals only? I am in support of this, however Parcels will also have neighborhood DAO proposals; perhaps these should be limited to just 1 parcel 1 vote? I feel like everyone should have equal say in neighborhood development

2 Likes

It may be slightly too much but voting power should definitely not be much lower than floor price, as that would mean you are penalized for spending your ghst, exacerbating the issue as it exists already with wearables and gotchis.

2 Likes

Why should someone who owns 10 humbles get the same voting power as someone who owns 10 spacious? Not much sense to that

4 Likes

I think it should be well below floor for a few reasons.

  1. Adding voting power to NFTs radically changes the voting power structure of the DAO. This should be undertaken with extreme care, and in my opinion should be done extremely conservatively with adjustments made to the parameters as time goes on.
  2. The value of NFTs can fluctuate wildly, and could even be exploited to grant disproportionate voting power if we are to use sale prices as voting power. Imagine the scenario where I have two wallets. The first wallet has 1000 GHST and 500 common wearables, and the other wallet has 500 common wearables. I could repeatedly buy each wearable for 1000 GHST between the two wallets and come out with a ridiculous amount of voting power. This is only a basic exploit, but it would be possible to do manipulations far beyond this.

How? The part of my voting power that used to come from my staked GHST would now come from my parcels that I bought with that GHST. If it was a free airdrop, I would agree with you, but people spend GHST (or tickets worth GHST) on acquiring those parcels.
Imagine someone beliefs so strongly into land, that they convert most of their Gotchi assets into parcels. Why should that persons opinion now matter significantly less? Not giving parcels voting power would disproportionately benefit people who decided to abstain from the auction and disadvantage those who bought parcels.

It could actually help with fluctuations if we give each parcel a fixed voting power, proportional to their size, as suggested by the OP.

I’m confused why you suggest that voting power for parcels should be adjusted over time and then present an exploit for those adjustments.

I, for one, really like the numbers that Cookiethief came up with. They are the closest numbers to the actual price that are proportional to size / alchemica baseline.

1 Like

I like logarithmic differences in voting power because it strikes a balance between equal voting (bad for spacious) and proportional voting (good for spacious). If you look at the ratio of Spacious:Humble floor price, it was substantially less than 32:1.

I’d advocate:
Humble: 128
Reasonable: 256
Spacious: 768 ( a tick above sqrt of 8)

Numbers chosen also to allow new voters to buy-in (re: humble) at a lower price point, therefore theoretically incentivizing adoption relative to proportional voting without screwing over spacious hodlers.

1 Like

IMO, the problem is that when it comes to trading NFTs on the bazaar, the GHST never actually leaves the ecosystem. The bulk of the GHST is just recirculated, so giving voting power to NFTs actually creates voting power basically out of thin air.

I’m not particularly against giving voting power to parcels, but I just think it should be very low. Perhaps around 70-80% of the floor price at auction prices, as this is slightly below the amount of GHST that is actually sent out of general circulation when someone buys it from the auction house.

Or even better, a good system might be simply to use the cumulative total of auction and bazaar fees to calculate voting power, and having raffle items be assigned value based on average number of tickets * floor ticket price at the time as voting power for NFTs.

I support this idea, but not at the ratio suggested. @deucehearts suggestion is good. We don’t want to overwhelmingly favor large land owners.

Currently, the DAO gives most representation to those with “skin in the game”. That’s positive for the ecosystem, but we could go further. Ownership of Gotchis, wearables, and Realm reflects a legitimate, long-term stake in Aavegotchi more than simply holding GHST.

I think we ought to move away from GHST voting entirely to a (well considered) weighting based on assets. There are many advantages to doing this, but maybe I’ll save it for another thread.

3 Likes

Which is good. The person who bought the NFT now lost its price in voting power, but gained the voting power of the NFT. The person who sold the NFT lost the NFT’s voting power but gained the voting power of the GHST. The mismatch between price of the NFT and its voting power might fluctuate over time, but both parties are aware of the mismatch if the NFT has a fixed voting power assigned to it. So sending the NFT back and forth, or selling it back and forth, accomplishes no net gain in voting power.

Like I said, I don’t see this as a problem for baazaar sales, but I do get your point in terms of the initial sale. The GHST that was spend in the auction wasn’t entirely burnt. Some went to bidders, some to Pixelcraft, and some will be used for realm rewards.
But that is still no reason to decrease the NFT holders voting power because the person who bought it at auction COULD have never received an RF reward, and it could have been their first and only bid. So as far as the governance process is concerned, the NFT holder is not really the person that gets voting power out of thin air. Quite the opposite: The NFT holder paid for it in full. The people who get voting power out of thin air are the RF winners, people who were outbid, and Pixelcraft. Yet, for each of them, a case can be made that this is, in fact, also, not out of thin air, or at least not a big issue.
The bidders actually wanted the NFT and got some GHST as a consolation prize, or they wanted the payout and took on the “risk” of getting the NFT. The RF reward winners likely spend a lot more on their wearables than the voting power they have (e.g. fireball bubble) and hence “deserve” RF reward boost to their voting power. And Pixelcraft simply doesn’t use its millions of GHST to rig the governance process.

Like I pointed out above, this would actually disadvantage the people who did spend the full amount. If you really wanted it to be fair, you would need to take voting power away from the people who received payouts, not from the people who spend the full amount by winning the auction.

And why 80% of the floor price? A lot of people spend a lot more than floor:
Humble mean price: 236.84
Reasonable mean price: 430.94
Spacious mean price: 1730.29

The problem really is (whether mean or floor) that the prices people paid are not proportional to the worth of the NFT as determined by alchemica deposits. Our biggest future ecosystem will be the GEX and hence I believe it is important that voting power should really be proportional to the worth of the parcel in alchemica.

1 Like

I am very hesitant to move forward with 64-256-2048 as the respective voting power for parcels. We are still early in price discovery and I do not want an early governance decision to distort that price discovery. I would be in favor of applying logarithmic differences in voting, though I think deucehearts is allocating too high for Humble and Reasonable parcels. You shouldn’t get bonus voting power just for being a small landowner. I would be more in favor of:
Humble: 64
Reasonable: 160
Spacious: 768

This allocation falls below the current and anticipated floor but still allocates a meaningful amount of voting power.

4 Likes

I think it’s important to separate this into two separate votes to speed up the time in which land owners have some voting power, and to also ensure land owners get a say in the future outcome.

  1. Implement land voting power immediately at 50% of voting power that was proposed in original post (32/128/1024) so land owners get a say in vote #2.
  2. Have a separate dao proposal related to what the land voting power should be increased to. This will ensure land owners do get some say in the voting power proposal, albeit at a reduced weight to what we assume the new voting power will be after vote #2.
3 Likes

It does. This is bad when it is pure inflation (expansion for the sake of expansion). However, including a group of REALM owners is important because it’s clear the REALM is essential to the Gotchiverse. Adding a set of stakeholders that is critical to the Aavegotchi metaverse to the voting pool is important. Building a good ecosystem requires balancing the needs of multiple stakeholders. That balancing starts with governance.

I like the idea of 0.5 GHST per pixel. As mentioned above, GHST isn’t actually being “locked up”, it’s being traded around, so any voting power we introduce is inflationary. Except for GHST that is burned in the auction/primary sales and baazaar listings, which IS in fact locked up forever.

So having a moderate amount of voting power for gotchis, wearables, and REALM makes sense to me.

So far 2M GHST has been burned, which isn’t really close to how much new voting power has been introduced, but a good portion of GHST is on Ethereum and thus not available for voting, so in a way it balances out.

However I do think it’s been to start out conservative. We can always allocate more VP later, but it’s harder to reduce it.

10 Likes

continuing from Discord: “Why exactly do you want spacious holders to have more VP than other hodlers?”

I believe it’s fair that larger hodlers are partially compensated for the capital outlays with greater voting power relative to humble hodlers. However, at current winning proposed rates it goes beyond reimbursement to subsidizing (at least for floor prices). +2048 GHST-VP for ~1500 GHST floor spacious is too good of a deal.

1 Like

The consensus on this thread seems to be 0.5 GHST / Pixel but in the Snapshot the 1 GHST / Pixel option is looking like a clear winner. Are people just picking the first option so they can get XP and not bothering to read? Maybe we need a “Present” vote first in future snapshots so people can collect their XP without ruining the actual vote.

1 GHST / Pixel seems absurd to me. That’s > 1 GHST (voting power) per 1 GHST spent. Compare to wearables which are something like 0.25 GHST (voting power) per 1 GHST spent (just ballpark from my own collection).

2,000,000/55000=36.3636363636 2mil/20k=100
The language in proposal assumes square pixels as the multiplier when it should be the square root.
Pixel width may be a more fair representation for the various sizes of parcels. 8, 16, 32, 64.
3.36-10 ghst per pixel width would be possible. calculations 26.88-80 ghst humble, 53.76-160 ghst reasonable, 107.52-320ghst spacious, and 215-640 ghst for paartners. This is only for act 1.