by 0xb825bf6030ccebeb6d4729313dbd594346975770 (Fehz)
The main objective of this working group will be to lead the submission of a socialized governance proposal with a set of rules, pathways and a specific framework to moderate discussions within this community, taking into account different experiences and group dynamics across the Discord server.
This working group will be facilitated by the DAO Facilitation Squad, and serve as a test case for a formal working group process that is currently being developed by the Facilitation Team in collaboration with other Core Units of the DAO.
The overall objective of the “Working Group Process” will be to create a formal decision-making pathway for the community to move from an issue to a well-thought out and socialized governance decision in a structured and semi-automated way.
As a matter of due procedure and forbidding these facilitators do as they please, this should NOT be passed until this Pre-poll Process for Establishing Formal Working Groups passes the 2 other rounds of voting.
What reasons are needed that they need the community’s decision to test this?
Can you share the current formal procedures of the Discord Server? It’s relevant for the community to know what will be discussed during this “test.”
Voting no because I have some concerns here… Can anyone answer why there are so many bot or “Zombie” accounts voting on this?
If you scroll down the votes, you can count 61 voters who have:
No name, only an ETH address
No changes made to their default avatar
Out of these, the votes are overwhelmingly “YES”, with 53 yes votes and 8 no votes. My criteria is also that these accounts had 10 mana or less. I did not count accounts with more than 10 mana.
I’m also concerned because this is not the first time that these “Zombie” accounts have come out in number to support a DAO policy. For the “Rebranding the DAO vote”, out of a total of 84 “YES” votes, 27 of them met my criteria to be considered a “Zombie” account (I only counted accounts with 10 or less Mana, they had only an eth address for a name and unmodified default avatar). This high percentage of Zombie voters made that specific proposal show up on my watchlist.
I keep records of these Zombie accounts for every single proposal that comes through the DAO, and I use a heat index to look for any anomalies.
I am seeing patterns for which proposals they are used to vote on.
See @ginoct message in the Discord. Governance Squad can restrict votes to 10VP in our Governance Portal, but before doing that needs to put it through a governance proposal process, and I believe they will submit a proposal.
Number of “Yes” votes have no real merit on a proposal since they are VP based so Sybil style attacks or votes have little real merit imo, since most folks are aware of that. There have also been bot votes on a number of proposals recently, each one leading to finger pointing in the wrong direction.
For both reasons @Canessa I would hope that the bots don’t sway your vote, and wish there was more I could do to respond to this concern.
Thanks for your reply Matimio. Here are my concerns:
Majority Influence: When an undecided voter looks at the numbers on the proposal, they will see an inflated number of votes. These may be equal if someone is using Zombies to vote for both the “yes” and “no” options. But if they are largely in favor of one options, people may just go with the “popular” vote. Without clicking on the actual votes, scrolling down to verify the validity of each voter, it might be easy for them to be swayed by these bots.
Using Zombie votes to represent the “Community”: I have seen at least one occasion where the author of a unpassed proposal that had a high number of Zombie votes later said publicly: “The community voted for this. The majority of voters wanted this”. When I went back and checked the data, 26% of the yes votes on this proposal were Zombie votes.
Point #2 above is what really concerns me Matimio. If they see a Twitter post saying “The majority of the community voted for this!” how likely are they to come back to the DAO, scroll down, look at each vote carefully and come to their own conclusion? Most people will just believe that the proposal had valid votes on it, and may be swayed by this.
I’m glad this conversation had a chance to be heard.
Of Course! If this is a concern of yours, I would suggest simply submitting the Pre-Proposal poll, and capturing community signals on this issue. The “Zombie” votes as you call them have always been somewhat of a nuance, and we might as well set a policy on them during this Grant’s pause period.
There is at the very least no reason we should be having voters cast votes with only a fraction of a MANA, which are the 0 votes you see, and I think there is a good argument to be had saying that 10 VP minimum for a vote to register is viable.
If we took it even further, there could be categories of votes (or voting in general) that required holding a DCL.ETH NFT. Just something to consider. Just food for thought, nothing I am particularly advocating for.