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.
Given that mana has reduced it’s value ~90%, the amount of USD that can be acquired for $/VP value has also increased significantly.
I have felt for a long time that the difference between a passing/not-passing grant is 49%/51% - alongside increases, it may be good to alter the threshold to a higher consensus (60%).
Often grants that are overwhelmingly supported by the community (>75% approval) get shadowed out by controversial grants that barely scrape through with ~50%.
Voting yes, perhaps instead of a doubling we could increase by 50% alongside a raise in threshold, I’m not sure on optimal levels however so just a thought.
This puts us back to where we were 6 months ago with voting. This is going backward.
Education and financial literacy would be a more worth while effort. This overal says the voters can’t be trusted to make good decisions.
The goal isn’t to make grants unreachable and a popularity contest. It should be aimed toward worth while content and building good products and services.
Changing this doesn’t resolve past behaviors. Learn from any mistakes and push forward. This is not pushing forward but backwards.
yes I think those thresholds are too low especially considering the newly delegated vp. I don’t think doubling all thresholds is the solution though. Maybe double all the thresholds under $240k grants? I think that in combination with limiting total VP could help. It is still very hard to get 8 million VP organically but maybe that is good for the platform overall
this is just not true tho. Especially with the newly delegated VP anything under 2 million votes is fairly easy to pass. just need to convince 4 delegates. any proposal under 500k vp can be passed by 1 person. That is a problem imo
Newly delegated VP? Not that I’ve seen. So some people got VP delegated to them so they feel anything is possible now. Only reason I have what I have is (thanks to @Peanutbutta) because he helped me out to continue a governance proposal that passed with near unanimous yes votes of which I needed 1000 VP in order to move it forward. Otherwise this newly delegated VP changes nothing in my opinion. I think it should stay as it is currently. I would like @Morph to provide a more in depth version of what he is talking about. That would appeal more to me than just a flat out doubling it. i also agree with @JTV . Voting No. Thank you.
Voting Yes to push this proposal forward, but I think we should discuss a more fluid model that is based on percentage based thresholds rather than a fixed figure. If we pass expanded fixed thresholds we open up potential vectors for attacks or paralysis. For example, a massive amount of VP delegation could be withdrawn from the ecosystem, effectively freezing the governance process with us unable to meet this thresholds even to reduce them.
Another model could be to set a certain majority threshold for binding governance proposals, or Grants. That way we measure both amount of minimum support and breadth of that support relative to opposition.
Voted Yes originally but changed to no, I think doubling the grant proposal would make it extremely difficult for anyone to get their proposal passed. This proposal is made with the assumption that everyone will retain their VP in the next 6 months, and all of the new delegates participates in every proposal. As Matimio mentioned, we would essentially freeze the governance process if a large percentage of delegates VP were removed or even diluted. However, I do agree certain proposals that require less than 2 million should be looked at. But that’s just my personal opinion.
The thresholds were recently raised and never again mentioned as an issue before this delegation. From the time of the increase until now, there have been multiple people with 500K VP, each one able to pass a poll with a single vote, and this was never brought up. Why now? I think it is ok to review, rethink and restructure our governance, but arbitrarily doubling thresholds for all categories only because more users got delegated is not the right course of action.
I would prefer to change the system so that the threshold is the difference betweem YES and NO in order to avoid controversial proposals to pass. So, my vote for now is NO here.
what we really need to do… is have our DAO automatically having its thresholds changing as more participating VP averages increase. Can someone create something to automatically change thresholds… or are we just going to double the VP every time we see whales passing grants too easy
I agree that thresholds should be raised, but there must be an individual approach for each imo. The government’s threshold would be 12M, which I think is too much for a start.
What I see is that only whales will have direct access to grants.
Imagine a grant that everyone likes, noone dislikes, because is a really good proposal that contributes somehow to “Decentraland”, it won’t pass just because new threshold, unless it’s driven by a whale.
Do YES voters want to depend any proposal on a whale? Because I think that is what will happen, builders will depend on a whale to pass every single proposal, and will only pass when his interest is attended
Just please, someone explain, why increasing the threshold is better than changing the rules, for example make the threshold apply to the difference of YES and NO? or what @Morph proposed, is there any interest to pass only controversial proposals with whale weight and a few vp difference? because I think that by changing the rules the community can stop dirty movements and corruption, maybe I miss some other options, but not by increasing threshold this way, which lead to more corruption, buy votes etc. Also other ideas are good to consider like the anonymous voting, etc.
Maybe I’m wrong, I’m always open to listen and change my mind. I’m still with a NO here
