[DAO:ab17626] Should VP Delegation have time limits?

Governance
1

by 0xd4f1cab694c4424c4796549edbb9b489789f4df5 (TudaMoon)

I understand that this had a pre-poll prior to this, however I think my personal name may have caused some bias on the discussion. I am asking for thoughtful consideration on this.

As for the actual length of time, I would like to discuss this in the forum, so please comment below on what you think the length of time should be. If this passes the pre-poll, I will put the most desired amount of time in the next draft proposal.

There are a bunch of reasons this should be implemented. In fact, I am having trouble finding reasons on why it shouldn’t. The only reason I can see why it shouldn’t be implemented is because it requires work to be done by the delegator and possible gas fees.

An example of where this exists comparatively is on OpenSea. Opensea doesn’t allow you to put an indefinite amount of time on offers for your NFTs or indefinite amount of time for your sales of your NFTs. However if you put your NFT up for sale for 1 month and it doesn’t sell by then, you would simply sign another contract to put it up for sale again.
This is similar to how VP delegation could be set up.

This would NOT put limits on the amount of times someone could be delegated, this would put limits on the actual amount of time delegation would exist per signed transaction.

Let’s use this hypothetical situation for example. I choose to delegate Wallet A 1000 VP. From the date I sign my contract to that delegate, if this term limit idea was implemented, the VP would be delegated for 1 year. After 1 year or whatever term the DAO decides, it would then return the VP back to the Delegator’s wallet. So as the delegator I would have to sign a transaction a new transaction to delegate it again. I always can keep choosing to delegate to Wallet A, but maybe after 1 year I realize that they are voting on proposals which are not in line with my personal beliefs. Maybe I would then choose to find someone who is more aligned with me. This would give me, the Delegator, responsibility in keeping up with their delegation, instead of turning my head and hoping everything works out.

Reasons Term limits for delegation of VP will be a positive improvement to the DAO:

  1. Reflection. It gives the delegator a chance to reflect on who they delegated their VP to this past term. It would give them the decision to continue their delegation with the same delegate or find a new delegate. This would require minimum interaction by the delegator.
  2. Inaccessible Wallets. Wallets that are owned by dead people or with lost private keys, will not indefinitely delegate their VP to someone else without the ability to un-delegate it.
  3. Uncomfortable Undelegating. Delegators may get uncomfortable undelegating their VP to someone. These terms may give some people a good reason to move around their VP.
    Maybe a Delegator just likes to choose someone new each term. It’s nothing against the delegate themselves, just they like to move around. This idea will be helpful and cause less friction and has the possibility to give more voices a chance to have some VP.
  4. Inactive Delegates. Look at how much land parcels there are without anything on them or nothing being built. Land Owners with VP may not pay attention to DCL, but may delegate someone to make decisions on their behalf. Without being involved in DCL, they may delegate their VP to someone and not ever come back to see how things are going. This gives them a reason to come back and see the progress made.

Also after a small discussion with Gino, I do believe we can come up with more complex governance measures, however this is more of a quick solution to implement, while we find a way to upgrade this in a more complex way. With these reasons, I believe time limits on VP delegation should be considered.

  • Yes
  • No
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

2

My thoughts remain the same on this matter (Should VP Delegation expire?)

“VP delegations are entirely at the discretion of the asset holder, imo no other entity/mechanism should interfere with this process.”

1 Like
3

Thank you for your opinion. What are your thoughts about inaccessible wallets? Should they never have a way to end their VP delegation?

I also want to mention that I did mention this had a prior pre-poll for transparency purposes. However, I think it was denied because of votes against me, not votes against the idea. I am using this as a confirmation. Your reason for voting last time seems it was against the idea which is valid and I appreciate your opinion. I hope others can consider the idea and not the person. I am not personally gaining anything out of this.

1 Like
4

Short answer, no. The asset holder is solely responsible for their wallet and the VP attached to their assets. Who is anyone to say times up on a VP delegation other than the owner themself.

Also, even if a mechanism was in place for this, the VP would then never participate in the DAO due to the fact the wallet is inaccessible.

1 Like
5

While yes I agree, I do think responsibility is important and you can’t force responsibility, but you can ensure that those who are NOT active with Decentraland will have to come back and decide to delegate once a year (let’s just use that timeframe for this example). This does not take any power away from the delegator except the ability to choose an infinite option. They still retain full power of their asset and Voting Power.

In my opinion, a delegator having to come back once a year doesn’t seem like a big requirement. If they can’t come back once a year to re-delegate their VP, do you truly think those people care about the DAO? In fact, I believe that’s why it should be revoked because of the carelessness. Once again, for those who care about their delegation, it would just be a yearly checkpoint kind of thing, where they just redelegate their VP.

Please consider this scenario:
A responsible asset owner who has a significant amount of VP delegates their VP to someone. Then a fire burns down their house and they lose access to their private keys. They even stored their private keys in a safe place. Circumstances outside their control leaves them the inability to access their wallet which delegates their VP. Now the wallet they delegated to, will indefinitely have their Voting Power while they are left with no control and no access to their assets.

Isn’t it better for this voting power to be revoked automatically after a time limit?

The way I am reading this comment, it reads as if you are referring to the delegate. I am talking about the Delegator. What if the asset owner (the delegator) loses access to their wallet, not the delegate? I am just clarifying, your answer may be the same, I just am making sure you understood my question.

6

I agree. It should not be written in stone. People’s views change and so do relationships. Another example would be a the delegator and delegate are friends but they have a falling out and the delegator can’t access his account to remove them for whatever reason. (we’re all creative here use your imagination. Nothing surprises me anymore) I also think that making people become more active is a good thing. How much time would it really take them to redelegate their VP. I want to be delegated VP and think a year is a good amount of time to have my performance reviewed by whomever chooses me (if ever). To have it renewed would say I’m doing a good job. To not then I would have to question some things about myself.

1 Like
7

i think i tend to agree with @nwiz - i guess my question would be is there a way to do this with snapshot currently? if so, is any other DAO using this feature? how is it going for them?

8

I would be supportive of optionality when delegating VP ie ‘Delegate your VP for 6 months, 1 year or indefinitely’ ; as long as the delegator gets to decide. I believe this would compliment the mechanism to delegate to multiple wallets (Should the DAO implement a mechanism to delegate VP to multiple wallets?)

2 Likes
9

That’s a valid question. As far as I can see from the user’s perspective, it is not available on snapshot. I am not aware of any DAO of this size period. However, as time progresses, many inactive wallets or inaccessible wallets may cause issues without having the ability to withdraw delegation. I am not sure why whomever created this contract, didn’t do this type of critical thinking.

In fact, I am still struggling to find a reason why non-permanent delegation would be a problem. Permanent delegation will lead to problems.

2 Likes
10

ah i really like that, nice idea!

@Tudamoon then as nwiz said, if this is done in conjunction with the mechanism to delegate to multiple wallets, maybe it doesn’t matter if it’s on snapshot currently.

1 Like
11

This idea is a step forward, I would even be willing to allow Delegation for 10-20 years. I just don’t think permanent delegation is forward thinking because it doesn’t solve some of the issues listed above which will happen (even if it didn’t happen yet). No one expects a fire, but when it happens, it’s better to have a fire extinguisher.

1 Like
12

Should VP Delegation have time limits?

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 14% 256,780 VP (132 votes)
  • No 85% 1,479,550 VP (133 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 1% 3,885 VP (7 votes)
13

Should VP Delegation have time limits?

This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)