This is not a formal proposal, but I think as a governing community we should consider if it’s time to introduce the following:
Allow for voters to formally abstain in the gov UI on individual votes (i.e., effectively delegate to everyone else casting a gainful vote in the DAO on a given decision), but still claim rewards. This prevents voters from casting a ballot for an outcome simply to collect rewards, but who may not really be informed about the possible consequences of a decision. I realize the purpose of “paying” voters is to incentivize participation, but unfortunately, the current system doesn’t incentivize quality or informed participation.
Allow users to enable vote delegation to a trusted community member of their choice (who do more fully analyze operational issues) to vote on behalf of others users’ shares. This delegation could be revoked by a delegator at any time. The delegator could still earn rewards, and perhaps optionally, a portion of those rewards could be provided to the delegate as well.
IMO, the vote to lock the Curve rewards potentially revealed a course of action which the DAO undertook, but may not have properly analyzed. The decisions from here may only become harder and more complex. Even though many YFI holders are adept at analyzing these issues, many more or are not. Even if they are, they may not be also capable of evaluating all of the information needed regarding additional Yearn operational trade-offs.
I would like to suggest that an option for abstentions to delegate to a generative fund ->
merch, info, “street team”(non tech, enthusiasts, influencers) as related to some of the secret initiatives;
this could be a way to reward these people for participating in their own way. And could be a big motivator to lock yfi.
Sensible, at least directionally, but wouldn’t this devolve into a beauty contest? The most vocal/likable/flashy would be favoured (i.e. general elections in any country). Can we expect that a YFIer that’s not knowledgeable enough to vote on a particular issue, would be able to make a wise choice when delegating?
Maybe we can start with a Abstain proposal, and table the Delegate functionality for later?
My fear right now is we have people voting (incentivized to earn the governance reward), but are not actually taking the time to make an informed decision.
A no penalty abstain signal would still incentivize voters to pay attention to gov proposals, and for them to vote on the ones which they feel they have a strong PoV on.
possibly, but i think for small fries it might make more sense to farm brand flow and the rewards would be correlated to the effectiveness of the marketing/ hype generated.
// I looked at my voting rewards and it’s not really effective for someone like me to vote based on multiple factors at this point but primarily that it costs way more to cast a vote than the rewards generated… I could get what’s left into the vault and have greater security, and not really effect governance either way…
as someone invested in the idea, I want to apply the “paradigm shift” to other disciplines and loop that back into the system… If those of us make a valuable contribution beyond the codebase, perhaps our bags will be pumped or our efforts rewarded with opportunities or kickdowns.
I think my skills are more on the hype side so i’m probably in the right place to put a street team together and see if we can get $yUsd (or $YAM) to be the reserve currency of the Streets.
->anybody into ar, or artists or if you’re in marketing get @ me I’m working on something fun for the #DharmaInitiative
I have my doubts about completely decentralized governance in general. There are too many uninformed deciders making monumental decisions about the protocol. Delegation can greatly improve on this.
For #1, I am against this. I think this will likely lead to more laziness when users know they don’t have to research the proposal, they can just abstain. This leads to less active participation and lower quality holders.
For #2, I am for it. I would much rather have 10 experts governing who have a high-level understanding of the day-to-day operations and a strong sense of vision for where the project should go. This is similar to the concentration of power in a company. It actually leads to strong decision-making. I am not worried about the centralization of power because we will delegate to honest actors with a proven track record and we can pull our delegation at any time.
I do like the option for an optional portion of rewards going to the delegate. Another option is to force a required delegation fee of some negligible amount (but can be significant for the delegate).
We need to be able to delegate. It is a pipedream to think everyone has the bandwidth + motivation + capacity to intelligently digest/understand a dynamic protocol and make informed decisions. There are community members here whose opinions I respect + think highly of, and on certain issues/governance calls I would happily delegate my vote in their name.
People like me are still voting and will vote in the future in binary fashion if that is the only way to receive rewards. Unfortunately with the system set up the way it is I either must spend a lot of time to intelligently inform myself or just click a yes/no. And yes, I want rewards. Up until now I have researched each vote and have an opinion but I can anticipate not having the mental bandwidth + time to continue doing this. So yes, it comes down to either I start clicking yes/no mindlessly if I don’t have that time down the road or I can hopefully be granted an option to spend more upfront time understanding certain community members values (which I already have a sense of) and delegate. I’d like to do the latter and feel it’s much healthier for the protocol in the long run.