Proposal 282 (Q342): Difference between revisions
From Nouns Dev
TiagoLubiana (talk | contribs) (Changed an Item) |
TiagoLubiana (talk | contribs) (Changed an Item) |
||||||
| Property / Abstain Count | |||||||
4
| |||||||
| Property / Abstain Count: 4 / rank | |||||||
Normal rank | |||||||
| Property / Team Size | |||||||
1
| |||||||
| Property / Team Size: 1 / rank | |||||||
Normal rank | |||||||
| Property / Proposal Budget in ETH | |||||||
0
| |||||||
| Property / Proposal Budget in ETH: 0 / rank | |||||||
Normal rank | |||||||
Revision as of 21:32, 14 July 2023
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 282 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6edBSbs21E
0 references
20
Disagree here. DAOs need to harden themselves against lazily letting underwhelming proposals slip by. Its true that a treasury-draining attack is unlikely in the current state, but important to stay far away from the cliff edge rather than see how close you can get. If a tightly contested proposal fails due to quorum and the opposition changes their mind, it can always be re-proposed. The same cant be said in the inverse case. Prefer that dynamic quorum stay at 20% or above.
0 references
I dont think the DAO has seen many (if any) detrimental effects from 20% max quorum. Our goal should be to increase participation, not decrease required participation, even for contentious props. I dont feel strongly about this opinion, and would be interested in seeing the effects of 15% max quorum, but if given the choice I support maintaining the status quo.
0 references
I am strongly against this proposal. Nothing has significantly changed since the DAO deliberated on this issue to warrant a resubmission looking revert it. I believe this would set a bad precedent and we could see proposals resubmitting quickly in hopes of a different outcome. With the DAO as busy as it is this would only hinder governance. I wont go into the arguments of this proposal as not enough time has passed for proper evaluation of the effects from the original proposal.
0 references
Feeling conflicted, but voting against. I really appreciate Nounlius putting this up and their reference to my past vote on this topic. A few thoughts 1. Putting the quorum back to 15% feels kind of low conviction. If we are ideologically opposed to the DQ and favoring AGAINST voters, we should set it to 0/the quorum. 2. The DAO just voted on this. I open to seeing how this goes. So far, I do not think it has led to an unhealthy about of props failing to pass. 3. Lower conviction on this point, but I do want to respect the time and energy of the DAO in voting on stuff, and so reverting back to exactly what it was before after such a short time feels possibly unhealthy. Again, thanks to Nounlius! Excited for more props from you!
0 references
I appreciate Nounlius for putting together this prop. However, I don’t think we need to reduce max quorum at this time. The DAO isn’t struggling to pass proposals; in fact, we are passing a reasonable amount: 11/15 recent proposals passed, even proposals with a lot of against votes (e.g., Prop 271) [1]. This parameter was just updated less than a month ago. I think we should allow sufficient time to observe how governance behavior and proposal outcomes are effected by updates to dynamic quorum. [1] https://twitter.com/TM0B1L/status/1655746375676510209
0 references
There is an inherent risk to passing proposals in a DAO. Passed proposals signify action. ETH is spent, configurations altered. Something could break. Someone could rug the treasury. Fundamentally, I understand why we would give extra weight to Against votes. When a proposal is rejected, nothing happens. We are safe. Dynamic quorums original intention was to defend against DAO attacks which target voter apathy. Was Prop 269 an attack? The more we talk about dynamic quorum parameters the more it just feels fiddly to me, like were micromanaging the DAOs actual decisions. Everyone was watching Prop 271 because the outcome could be determined by a single vote. I find myself yearning for simplicity. Life is more exciting on the other side of the threshold. I think were looking at technical solutions for what is ultimately a social issue of consensus. If we want to spend less, or more, or fund more art, or less art, or more blockchain public goods, I think the path forward is communication and campaigning for support within the DAO.
0 references
Reducing the maximum quorum percentage fosters a culture of non-consensus thinking within the DAO, ultimately providing a competitive edge. This approach encourages diverse perspectives and ideas, and by nurturing an atmosphere that values non-consensus thinking, the DAO becomes more agile and adaptable, allowing it to stay ahead of the curve and maintain a competitive advantage in a rapidly changing landscape.
0 references
In recent months, I don’t feel like the DAO has been in danger of passing any proposals that would not have been worth the experiment, but I do feel that some creatives and builders have been discouraged by the new higher barrier to funding. Discouraging would-be builders from participating in the ecosystem is as much a cost to the DAO as funding some ideas that might not work out, and I think we should err on the side of taking more calculated risks.
0 references
In favour, but not in response to Prop 269: Gnarly EP being defeated. Will be resubmitting once my Nouns are available with revised mint splits and a new title. Lil Bubble has already updated the title on Spotify etc to Extremely Nounish EP. Mostly in favour because I think the contentious props can often yield some of the best outcomes.
0 references
18
agree with proposers rationale
0 references
Decentralization ftw
0 references
*On behalf of UglyDAO*
0 references
Its not yet clear to me what DQ parameters are actually healthy for the dao long term - there are good arguments to bring them up, or down, and its anyones guess what the perfect equilibrium would be. But for now, im in favor of reducing max quorum.
0 references
I don’t think we need it at 20%. This barrier doesn’t affect quality of proposals imo.
0 references
21
a correction Id like to make to tm0b1ls stat around 11 of the 15 recent props passing is that it excludes 5 cancelled props. the cancelled props were mostly cancelled after receiving a wall of against votes so they are better understood as defeated prop for the purposes here rather than non-existent props. so weve passed 11 out of the past 20. the picture that that paints to me is that were already doing a good job at being protective against grifts or overspending. getting the majority of votes to be a FOR vote is already a tall order. I dont think the added hurdle really serves us well. you could say that it was only triggered 1 out of the 20 recent props so it is just inconsequential. it doesnt have much cost. but I consider the cognitive cost to be real. like bloat in a code base. its bloat in the governance process. a specific threshold until which AGAINST votes have double the weight. proposers and voters have to remember and track that each prop. Im voting to reduce this hurdle and cognitive load.
0 references
I believe that setting the quorum at 20% is too high considering the usual voter participation rates; hence, I voted against raising it to this level. My preference lies in risking the possibility of some less impressive proposals being passed, rather than obstructing potentially high-quality proposals, which could occur if a dominant group within the DAO opposes them.
0 references
Like the Virtuous Cycle said>>> I think we should be bold with the Nouns DAO treasury. We should fund and cultivate a community of builders by experimenting, taking risks, and ultimately funding every high quality proposal that could lead to interesting culture and software (especially ‘middleware’) on the Nouns protocol: - Centralized and decentralized APIs (let’s turn Noun O’Clock into an internet-wide event) - Artwork that adds something new to the cultural conversation - Integrations with other Ethereum primitives and dapps - iOS and Android apps - Hackathons and Documentation - Things we’ve never seen before I think we have a historic opportunity — to be bold, take risks, and ultimately attract the builders who can take the raw ingredients of the Nouns protocol, and turn them into applications that are ready to be consumed by the world. If we can do this, the DAO will attract more capital and higher quality participants, and the virtuous cycle will be complete.
0 references
As the April delegate of Noun 652, its fitting that my first and last votes were both related to the dynamic quorum. Following the implementation of a higher quorum via Proposal 261, only one proposal has failed to meet the new threshold - Proposal 269, the Gnarly EP. The rest of the proposals either succeeded in reaching the quorum or received more against than for votes. However, I continue to believe that proposals receiving a majority of for votes but failing to pass due to not meeting the threshold is ultimately detrimental to Nouns at this stage. In my original vote against raising the quorum, I expressed opposition to the idea of hell yes voting, arguing that the DAOs best interests lie in being open to individuals who are interested in building. When the DAO becomes too focused on hell yes votes, it will receive less attention and energy. Some of the best innovations have been born out of skepticism and doubt. I look forward to seeing more proposals work to proliferate Nouns in weird and wild ways and hope that other voters continue saying yes to bold ideas. As my last words as Noun 652, I want to give a huge thank you to Wilson Cusack and the entire Nouns community for having me as a delegate.
0 references
**FOR - 35 VOTES** **profwerder** | *Glad to see this readjustment of THRESHOLD back to 15%. There was no need to increase in the first place. * **AGAINST - 5 VOTES**
0 references
18
which will is the better will? price or cusac?
0 references
Lavneet and Arya told me to do it
0 references
139
0 references
182
0 references
Dynamic Quorum Updates
0 references
1 May 2023
0 references
282
0 references
163
0 references
Summary: The text discusses a proposal to update the Dynamic Quorum settings. The current settings have a minimum quorum of 10%, maximum quorum of 20%, and a coeffici ent of 1. The proposed changes include maintaining the minimum quorum at 10% and the coefficient at 1, but reducing the maximum quorum to 15%.
0 references
1 May 2023
0 references
Nounlius
0 references
While appreciating the intent of the proposal, its unclear what the practical impact of this would be, or even if it would be positive or negative. As jihad points out, our main goal should always be to increase voter turnout - I cant think of any way to game the way people turn out w/out (a) either having more contentious propositions or (b) having alternate ways to incentivize vote usage (like with voting markets, etc). To that end, while I dont find this proposition to be malignant in its intent, I dont see the obvious value, and am more averse to creating governance bloat, where we have a bunch of active rules and parameters to operate within, making future proposals harder to pass. Is 15% the right amout? or 10%? or 5%? As a high level framework for what kind of governance proposal makes sense, Id argue individual nouns should always vote in favor of what they find to be *right*, as opposed to voting for something that *isnt wrong*. This vote is largely to commemorate the reasoning above, not to criticize the particulars or intent of this proposal, which is why it is an abstention, and not a for or against.
0 references
4
0 references
1
0 references
0
0 references
