by 0x0749d1abb5ca9128432b612644c0ea1e9c6cc9af (GovernorMarvin)
Linked Pre-Proposal
Summary
This proposal suggests implementing dynamic voting thresholds in the Decentraland DAO, with DAO tools, the DAO can auto-adjust its thresholds as the Voting Power participation increases & decreases.
Abstract
This proposal suggests implementing dynamic voting thresholds in the Decentraland DAO governance process. Instead of relying on static participation and acceptance thresholds, this system would adapt to voter engagement, proposal type, and contextual variables. The aim is to enhance democratic participation, reduce proposal stagnation, and maintain fairness during fluctuating levels of community activity.
Motivation
Decentraland DAO uses static thresholds for participation and acceptance across different proposal types. While this ensures consistency, it also introduces challenges:
Valuable proposals often fail due to low voting power turnout, not due to opposition.
Voter apathy or seasonal dips can stall meaningful governance.
The system doesn’t scale well with fluctuations in community size or activity.
By introducing Dynamic Thresholds, the DAO could better reflect real-time voter sentiment and engagement, improving the efficiency and representativeness of its governance processes.
Specification
The dynamic system would work as follows (for discussion and refinement):
Participation Thresholds adapt based on recent DAO activity:
Calculated as a moving average of VP cast over the last (X) amount of proposals.
Ensures thresholds scale with actual voter participation trends.
Acceptance Thresholds are context-sensitive:
Critical governance (smart contract changes) maintains higher thresholds.
Less sensitive proposals (POI additions) adjust lower during periods of low engagement.
Fail-Safes:
Minimum and maximum bounds that the community can choose and vote on to prevent abuse or drastic changes.
All dynamic calculations are transparent and auditable via DAO tools.
Pilot Phase:
Initial implementation applies only to POI and Name Ban proposals.
Feedback gathered for broader roll-out.
Possible Implementation Ideas
Time-Based Adjustments → If the last (X) amount of proposals have failed due to participation issues, lower the threshold slightly.
Proposal Impact Scaling → More significant proposals require higher participation, while routine ones have flexible thresholds.
Voting Power Trends → If overall VP concentration shifts significantly (whales controlling too much VP), thresholds could auto-adjust back to default thresholds to ensure fair governance.
Conclusion
Dynamic voting thresholds offer a more flexible, inclusive, and realistic governance model for Decentraland. While the transition will require care, this change could significantly improve the DAO’s ability to adapt and thrive in a decentralized, user-driven environment.
Benefits
Increased Proposal Throughput: Fewer good proposals will fail due to arbitrary VP thresholds.
Better Representation: Reflects real-time voter engagement, not just static figures.
Encourages Participation: Voters see more impact, especially during quieter periods.
Scalable Governance: Adapts naturally as Decentraland’s population grows or contracts.
Drawbacks
Complexity: May confuse newer voters who are used to fixed thresholds.
Perceived Fairness: Risk of perceived manipulation if not implemented transparently.
Implementation Work: Requires dev work to build tracking and dynamic logic.
Transition Period: Governance might temporarily feel unstable during the pilot.