[DAO:da5271a] Double the VP threshold for all proposals and grants

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 =)

  • yes double
  • no
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

Didn’t this just got rejected? also you mention robs way of using his VP, is he not free to do whatever he likes with his VP, just like you and me?

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.

Seems in bad faith to instantly resubmit a failed poll.


I’m with jarod on this one :raising_hand_man:t2:

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.

1 Like

It’s a Rob’s world and we are just living in it :upside_down_face:

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.

Changing my vote to NO instead of invalid to vote with the majority.

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.

What should be changed is that more consensus is necessary to pass a proposal, not to increase the VP.

1 Like

It was going head to head without robs vote even tbh :S

Yes pablo i’m totally with you on this one, or even minor rules like you have to have a dcl eth name or something, more rules help the dao aswell

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?

1 Like

Copy pasting my post from the previous proposal:

Voting No, it’s not clear what the proposal is trying to fix.

The function of the threshold is mainly to avoid Spam: bots creating proposals, and the proposals passing without nobody payed attention to it.

But people with large amount of VP all well known and a small group, they can’t spam the platform.

What is the issue if the lower threshold is 500k VP when there are, as you say, millions of VP distributed in the community?

There are many issues:

  • People not voting
  • Whales

But this change solves nothing of that.

Disclosure: I’ve 500k VP

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

  1. need to reach a certain threshold of VP
  2. 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…

1 Like

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.