Proposal 216 (Q1957)
From Nouns Dev
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 216 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
Mandated Round: Private Voting Research Sprint
0 references
75
0 references
19 January 2023
0 references
87
0 references
166
0 references
216
0 references
I like this proposal because technical research is something that is lacking from Noun proposals. Nouns can become a leader in funding research of breakthrough technology. Looking forward to seeing how this plays out and how we can build on it.
0 references
Whether its implemented in Nouns or not (...provided someone can figure it out) this definitely would fall under the public goods category and would be a good feature for DAOs to have available to them. So its a yes from me. Im not smart enough to understand the implications of its implementation... I like using mandated Prop house rounds to onboard new brains into Nouns eco too. The way the Verbs guys have structured this with a bit of budget put aside to promote more entries is good too.
0 references
People have a right to privacy.
0 references
11
We do not agree that Nouns DAO has a need for secret voting and believe secret voting in Nouns DAO would be detrimental to its culture and brand. Nounders are signalling that IF private voting research is successful and a prop is on the verge of implementation - it will likely result in a veto. I think its important we see this through all the way.
0 references
I disagree with the nounders on this one. theres a view that privacy is all about wanting secrecy and that it is a cloak that only the cowardly or the malicious want to put on to hide their shenanigans. this view imo misses the real social issues real humans experience when voting completely transparently. for example, once you get to know someone or some team its hard to vote against a prop they put up even if you dont think they are the right person / team for the project (or dont agree with the aim of the project entirely) b/c it feels like youre rejecting them and that social pressure creates a social relationship cost to voting honestly (biasing towards voting yes or not voting). another example is if you know youre going to put up your own prop soon or a contentious prop you care a lot about is coming up soon. in that case, you need to maintain friendly relationships with as much of the voter base as possible. voting your conscience in props leading up to the prop you want to win creates a real opportunity cost to voting honestly. note that in both of these examples the voter is not trying to screw over the protocol public. they are an honest actor that simply would prefer to vote honestly for selfless reasons but the social costs or the opportunity costs of doing so lead them to vote (in the worst case) dishonestly. Im totally open to the possibility that ultimately the benefits of full transparency can outweigh the benefits of privacy and we can as a community decide to maintain the status quo. but I would like to have the conversation before dismissing it out of fear. and we cant really have a concrete conversation if we dont know whats even possible. this round imo is a step to find that out.
0 references
Nobody should feel they have to vote against their true opinion due to social pressure. When voting is private, were able to express our opinions and preferences without fear of retaliation. This can lead to a more diverse range of viewpoints being considered and ultimately result in better decision-making for Nouns. Additionally, private voting can also help prevent vote buying and manipulation, ensuring that the outcome of the vote truly reflects the will of the community.
0 references
I believe the most important task for Nouns DAO right now is to fund work that is charismatic to those we want to draw in. I think privacy tech is hugely important and charismatic in crypto broadly, and I expect it to be a core part of DAO-tech, in the future. I see DAO-tech as a core Nounish funding area. So I am voting yes on this because I think the work is important and I am hopeful that Nouns investing here will draw in more like-minded thinkers and builders to the ecosystem. I am uncertain about the usage in Nouns DAO, specifically. I can imagine a lot of ways in which private voting could make the DAO less healthy. But I think that (1) it is coming one way or another and we have a chance to invest and put our own spin on it (2) known personalities will win out in the long run and be the most popular delegates. Thanks to David and Elad for their time putting this together!
0 references
12
**Prop 216: YES WINS** 24 Yes, 15 No, 2 Abstain 14 Nouncillors abstained from the decision --- **Vote Reasons & Discussion** --- **Bigshot Klim** | *i think that we owe some levle of honesty and feedback to the people that sownd their valuable time and energy dreaming up theiur peops a s putting them on chain. having a random toaster ir amcrocodile press no on hour dream without a reason is a good way tondrive away future builders* **profwerder** | *We already have some big issue with Hey Anoun -- including legal concerns -- so before we get into more anonymous ways to libel people, maybe we pass it by the Foundations legal team? Just a thought. This may do more harm than good and goes against transparency so maybe more thought and discussion is needed before we fund this much eth.* **Classic_Craig** | *I find this very interesting and would love to dive deeper and have solutions that allow for private voting.* **Josep** | *It seems to me that private voting is something important in order to improve governance, I agree with the proposal.* **byhardy** | *Excited to see what people come up with here!* --- For more Nouns DAO proposal discussion head to the Nouncil Discord: https://discord.gg/nouncil
0 references
we need privacy to get better governance
0 references
Aligned with krel on this one.
0 references
16
as per nounder vote reason
0 references
44
We do not agree that Nouns DAO has a need for secret voting and believe secret voting in Nouns DAO would be detrimental to its culture and brand. The only justification for this mandated round appears to be research for Nouns DAO. As we disagree with the need for this research, we don’t believe in directing funding to it. There may be other groups which benefit from this research, and we welcome a new proposal that outlines their need and requests appropriate funding.
0 references
I dont see it as something that is absolutely necessary right now. It can wait for a better moment for this kind of ask.
0 references
Voting Against to demonstrate the need for private voting is somewhat overblown. On a more serious note: Im a big proponent of nounsdao funding public goods, especially in the software/crypto/ethereum domain, so on the one hand, i love this initiative. But Ive come to the conclusion that private voting acts to further dehumanize nounsdao, and that, on net, we gain from having faces (or avatars) attached to votes for as long as possible. I believe nounsdao is better off in a world where voting comes with some social pressure to take responsibility and publicly stand behind voting decisions. I acknowledge social pressure also swings the other way (relationship costs, nepotism, etc) but Im willing to make that tradeoff vs cold, faceless PvP. Even though the prop clearly says that whether to implement private voting is still TBD, I think funding this prop would heavily signal that nounsdao want to also adopt private voting eventually. I would be interested in funding a prop that is better at keeping nounsdao private voting at arms length from the research, but im somewhat vary that even that would lead to eventual/quicker implementation of private voting.
0 references
There are good arguments for and against both sides but given what is to be most affected is the culture + brand of Nouns, I have to side w being more conservative and therefore vote against.
0 references
I fully support developing this... eventually. But I think its too big an ask in terms of ETH, with the market currently so low. Would consider supporting in the future when market is back up. For now, any big ETH asks should have much better proliferation impact.
0 references
19 January 2023
0 references
This is a difficult vote for me. I love the team and would love to see some work done with cool tech. But one of the coolest things about nouns from the beginning for me was the transparency in voting. It’s the first governance system I was even drawn to participating in and I have to say a big part has to be due to the transparency. I’m going to stay out of this one for now.
0 references
Furthermore, influential voters by default don't show their vote (they can still choose to share their vote), making it harder for others to copy their behavior, nudging more voters to develop original points of view. - <@378904401290592258> --Wouldn't we still have to be able to see how many tokens they're voting with? There are not many people who have 10+ votes — and very few have the same # of Nouns.
A good private voting design would not show you the balance of each voting transaction. You would only know that it's a valid vote and the final tally.
0 references
fwiw I support this prop. but this is something i've always wondered about anonymous voting. it works for the ppl who hold 1-2 tokens. but those with a lot of Nouns would not be anonymous, no?
A good private voting design would not show you the balance of each voting transaction. You'll only know that it's a valid vote, and you'll only know the final tally.
0 references
230,000
0 references
3
0 references
9
0 references
19
0 references
18.41
0 references
230,000
0 references
18.41
0 references
The verbs team
0 references
Nouns DAO is funding three zero-knowledge teams for a three-month research sprint to design open-source solutions for private voting. The total budget is 230K USDC, including a 20 K USDC marketing budget. The aim is to move closer to having private voting on the mainnet, create valuable public goods, and attract cryptography experts to Nouns.
0 references
