Concentration of voting power seems to be already an issue. Delegating votes will just make it worse.
Also delegating is not really needed at all. Investors can vote at any time if they are interested.
5 Likes
I also disagree with this poll. Allowing voting power to be transferred means the possibility of many voting power to be transferred to one entity. This is dangerous. As such, i absolutely disagree with it. This poll proves the point being as one vote outweighs the majority of players. My proposition itself was downvoted by a whaleâŚ
agree with you zoo. This if really needed, should be revisited in the future.
Voting for Public platforms/goods : Quadratic Voting/Funding
1 Like
Implemented in Illuvium
A general understanding of quadratic voting.
I personally feel such a system is mandatory to any DAO since all ecosystems are bound to have whales. What matters is how the vote weightage is distributed fairly benefiting the ecosystem as a whole.
1 Like
I spoke with the Snapshot developers between last night and this morning. They clarified that vote delegation does not cascade in the snapshot protocol, which means there is only a single level of delegation that can occur. In the immediate, this addresses the security concerns between the cold storage and hot wallets. Im not versed enough on the district leadersâ multisig gas fee issue with regards to voting to know if delegation immediately addresses it, but that seemed to be the sentiment last night at the Town Hall discussion.
Here is how delegation works between three parties in the snapshot protocol:
If Player A delegates to Player B, Player B can vote using Player B + Player Aâs voting power. Should Player A choose to vote on the same proposal as Player B, the delegated votes from Player A to Player B are nullified. Player A and Player Bâs votes will be logged separately on the same proposal with their respective VP.
If Player B delegates to Player C, after having received Player Aâs VP, Player C can vote with Player C + Player Bâs VP, but that does not include the delegated votes from Player A to Player B. Players A, B, and C can all still vote with their respective VP should they choose to be active on a proposal, or their trusted delegate can act on their behalf.
You do not need to rescind your VP delegation in order to exercise a direct vote and voting power does not cascade.
There is a gas fee of ~$2.50-$5.00 to add or remove delegation between two address as this happens on chain and not on IPFS where the votes themselves are stored. When choosing a delegate, a Player would be accessing the delegateâs trustworthiness in addition to committing funds, albeit a small amount, in order to make the delegation possible.
This is excellent information @MorrisMustang ! Thanks for digging into this!
So basically, this would bring us to a representative democracy, not a liquid democracy correct? As I understand, this feature currently allows us to allocate our votes to another person, but that person canât shill your votes to others. That is great.
I think this still presents the issue, that people can âbribeâ others in essence, maybe even make them feel like they need to âpay for protectionâ by giving their VP to a random delegate.
I think we need safeguards in place before we venture in this territory, something this proposal doesnât take into account. I believe it makes sense to vote against this for now, establish a way for the districts to vote freely on matters so their input can be quantified and taken into account for issues like this which impact everyone, all the districts, and the future creators coming to DCL. Such an impactful change shouldnât be made without the consideration and votes of the districts for one. Also, we would need to first identify and mitigate risks that come with âHoarding Votesâ, of which Quadratic Voting seems to be an excellent topic to explore to see whether it will level the playing field for smaller players with less funding but just as much to offer (and active participation), can bring their thoughts and opinions and be counted in these major decisions.
3 Likes