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:
- 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
- Invalid question/options