Alright I’ve made a post on Discord about this already and would like to hear some more thoughts. So far the responses have been pretty positive.
The Problem
We currently have a lot of Signal / Community Proposals on Snapshot and new posts on this forum everyday. So far none of those proposals were able to even get close to the quorum of 20% though. The most popular one by @JG1 about adding additional fees for rarity farming only got around 2 million GHST in votes (~11%) - even though the team decided to take it as a Core Proposal. After being upgraded to a Core Proposal we smashed right through the quorum in less than 24h.
I think there are two pretty obvious reasons for this. On the one hand, our Snapshot is a bit chaotic right now, with some Signal Proposals not following the template at all. On the other hand - and I think this is the more important one - voting on Core Proposal gets you 20 Experience (XP) for your Gotchi.
Potential Solution
I propose adding a small Experience drop (10 XP) for people who voted on successful Signal Proposals, meaning ones that reach quorum and get upgraded to Core Proposals. Simply dropping XP for all Community Proposals could result in more low quality suggestions, which shouldn’t be the goal of this proposal. Even if 10 XP might not be much, it gives people incentives to actually look through the Signal Proposals and vote on quality proposals with a higher chance of reaching quorum. As a DAO community involvement is extremely important and I believe this is a small, but decent, step in the right direction.
“incentivizing people to actually look through the Signal Proposals and vote on quality proposals” is definitely something that makes sense to pursue. The Snapshot is a bit chaotic as is and lets face it, its a bit of a drag to sift through anything too unorganized. Adding some XP rewards for taking the time to contribute to Signal Proposals makes sense.
Right now it is so hard to reach quorum! This is an awesome idea! Thank you very much for the proposal fren.
With ‘template’, do you mean the one in the Scaling AavegotchiDAO blogpost, or is there a more polished version? Right now, it is more of an unordered list, were some of the bullet-points are confusingly similar to each other. E.g. “goals”, “effect”, “end goals” is more or less the same thing in many cases. Maybe giving it an order and a bit more structure would help adoption, I think.
Ya I just meant that one. I guess it’s more of a rough guideline that a template. I don’t want to point fingers at anyone but some proposals don’t have any discussion in the forum and are just a few sentences with an idea.
I like the idea of incentivizing voting on quality proposals. And I agree that I should spend more time looking at Signal Proposals but it can get kinda messy in here. Definitely going to cast a vote on this one.
giving xp for successful proposals means people are incentivized to only vote yes even if something is a bad idea
Though at the same time yes you are right, not enough people are voting on community proposals at the moment…
I see, I guess i didn’t understand it fully.
In that case yeah I guess it would be better to incentivize people to vote!
not sure how much would be fair though.
Interesting that one of the whales voted no, while there is 100% consensus on the forum poll. Would be great if some of the whales actually interacted with us plebs here.
Same happened to the proposal for the 1-hour grace period to pet your gotchi, I woke up with a whale voting abstain. Also that didn’t pass, I didn’t advertise it enough and didn’t offer the proposal enough time. A pet all button would be a quick fix, not permanent though.
I think modest XP rewards for signaling voting is a first step towards improving our decision pipeline. Going forward, I’d like to see something like the holographic consensus approach. As described in a Medium article -
“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.”
The idea for HC is that DAO voter attention is a scare resource and therefore 1) it should be monetized based on supply and demand 2) the staking of proposals by predictors will enable the best proposals to reach the decision stages 3) relative majorities can be utilized to make decisions rather than absolute majorities and quorums because only those proposals already promoted by the general consensus of the DAO will pass from the signaling phase to the decision phase. Proposers need not put up the stake for their proposals but they do need to promote them to the broader community in order to generate sufficient interest to attract staking and predictors.
There are other similar concepts for DAO decision making out there. The general idea is the same: improve the signal to noise ratio of proposals needing the limited attention of DAO voters through network effects, skin-in-the-game commitments and rewards reflecting the general consensus of the DAO community.