by 0x521b0fef9cdcf250abaf8e7bc798cbe13fa98692 (Kyllian)
There are now over 13.5M VP delegated from Esteban alone (25x 500k VP)
Over 31.5M VP delegated in total, and 65M VP owned by people who participated at least once in the DAO.
Having name bans and POIs at 500k VP, or one delegated vote away, doesn’t really make sense anymore.
Same for 20k USD grant at only 2M VP.
I propose to double all VPs threshold for all proposals and grants, including governance proposals.
But this time without having that sad and lame RobL voting last minute because he want to keep his power to singlehandedly decided the outcome of votes =)
Reposting here, same proposal, same idea, same issues of being shut down by 4m of VP from a district owner who couldn’t even build a simple district concept with 2,000 free parcels.
Honestly, no, not all VP is equal and there is a reason most district owners don’t vote unless there is an existential threat to the platform itself, because it is a massive amount of responsibility, and most district owners take that seriously and are always thinking of what would be best for the platform itself.
There is far more value in the opinions of 3-4 figure VP votes that make up real community consensus, as opposed to a whale who got 4M worth of land contributed by others then silenced them to do whatever he wanted.
Rob’s existence is a majority reason why this proposal is even needed, he is a continuous threat to the platform because he wields an ununiform amount of power for the $$$ and time he’s supposedly put in, and continuously uses that power to extract wealth or vote in his own personal favor, as opposed to what is best for the platform.
If raising the VP limit means we prevent him from consistently being the differentiating factor in a proposal reaching threshold or not, then that’s likely the best outcome for the platform, even if it means it’s going to be harder to get legitimate ideas through.
but i wanna add on to that this proposal is genuinely bad because as it may seem like there are more proposals more likely to pass, its a lie. there are with more VP less proposals likely to pass as esteban told me that he delegated his VP intentionally to people with a background of voting no. So lets not deceive people here.
I don’t think it is good that DAO Comittee re-submits the same proposal that was rejected seconds ago.
Even without the 4M VP, the results were too controversial.
Oh, i didn’t realize Rob was why the last one failed.
Doubling VP reqs at the same time the facilitation squad is pushing for only 50% of vp to be used on most vote types seems like to actions that cancel each other out.
Despite thinking that doubling the VP for everything is at best a mediocre idea, I am voting Yes.
If the last attempt at this prop only failed because RobL voted it down last second, it would seem this idea is supported by the community and we should all do our part to fight bad actors.
Sadly, very few people with a six-figure sum of VP feel similarly.
I completely understand why this proposal exists but, while a revamp of VP threshold is needed, a blanket doubling does not represent the best solution. It creates the potential unbalancing of voting power and the uncoupling of thresholds to proposal outcomes.
I already said I didn’t think this was a good idea.
However, my personal philosophy is that I can’t support any prop that only succeeds because a con-artist who stole 2,000 parcels of land voted in support of it.
In the previous cloned proposal, several people besides me argumented that what should be changed is the amount % of consensus on the yes/no votes. Intead of creating a new copy pasted that will pass with controversial, an improved proposal could have been submitted. Is that hard to try to agree with more people?
Voting no. I absolutely see agree that there is an issue. But I don’t think this is the solution. I would happily vote yes on something that changes the way the voting system works. Something along the line of
need to reach a certain threshold of VP
Need to have more than 50% yes votes (1 person, 1 vote, no VPs here)
And yeah, figuring out how number 2 works so that it can’t be easily manipulated will take some effort. But it should absolutely be doable…
Let’s sort this out please. There is this proposal and there are proposals to limit VP used on proposals, if both pass then there had better be some calculations done so that it isn’t near impossible to pass anything. Just saying. For now I am abstaining or invalid questioning.
