To reduce the VP threshold from the current 6m VP to 5m VP.
Abstract
DAO participation is currently low.
Previous few governance proposals passed with the help of Esteban’s VP.
Lowering the VP threshold needed to pass a governance proposal by 20% (from 6m-5m VP) will reflect the lower participation.
Motivation
DAO participation has been trending down for various possible reasons- low crypto prices, the introduction of the new DAO structure, metaverse trends decline.
In order to ensure that the DAO can still pass proposals that involve the governance process, we have to reflect the reduced participation in the amount of VP needed to pass it. This also ensures that members of the community do not feel disheartened to raise potential issues and provide a solution, knowing that it stands a chance in passing governance.
This will not, in any way, affect the outcome of decisions made as it still requires a positive consensus via voting.
Specification
Reduce required VP threshold for ‘Governance Proposal’ from the existing 6M VP to 5M VP.
Conclusion
The DAO has seen its ups and downs over the years. But one thing is for sure, we’ve always adapted to the constant changes in the dynamics of DAO. This change will reflect that.
If and when the time comes, when participation starts picking up again, we can consider increasing the VP threshold to reflect such sentiment.
I do not think this is a wise idea. Mana is .065 as I write this. If anything, I favor increasing the amount of VP needed to pass governance proposals. We are dangerously close to prices that would allow a single outside entity to purchase enough Mana to control every governance proposal hereon out.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts @Canessa. I understand that concern. Along that lines, I believe that issue will still exist even with MANA prices at $0.1. It won’t be a deterrent if that entity decides it wants to “whale” its vote through by buying up MANA.
At $0.1 MANA price, it’ll still only take the entity an extra $100k USD to get from 5m- 6m VP. My assumption is that if ill intent has conviction, that won’t be much of a barrier considering the person has already spent 500k USD on MANA/LAND. Safeguards like community voting against such proposals as well as the presence of Council and SAB, provides a reasonable amount of safeguard.
On the flipside, if proposals that can improve the system can’t pass because we can’t hit the threshold, members will feel deterred to bring up changes for vote because “what’s the point if we can’t hit the threshold at the last mark”
Its a fine balance between security and vibrancy. At this moment, looking at how quiet the DAO has been (for better/worse) the last 6 months, it seems to me that the more pressing issue is one of vibrancy.
Also, a consideration is that all(literally) the governance proposals that have passed in the last 6-9 months involved Esteban(respectfully) voting. That dependance brings more to question on whether proposals are gated by him(again, respectfully).
I voted no because i don’t think this proposal makes sense right now with the price of mana being so low. What we do need is more participation in the ecosystem and more people wanting to buy and hold mana, names, and land.
maybe adding a requirement to make a min number of community members voting as well and put in ways to block one player/entity being able to control DCL, like ice poker did already…