Proposal 261 (Q338)
From Nouns Dev
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 261 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
while I have a gut feeling that increasing the dynamic quorum may potentially cause more harm than good and could lead to increased divisiveness within the community, i also recognize the importance of exploring the effects of this proposal. assessing its impact could ultimately be beneficial for the DAO as a whole, and it might help us better understand how to refine our governance processes.
0 references
we spent a lot of time building and testing dynamic quorum, but it hasnt impacted any proposals. Incrementally increasing the maximum quorum allows it to work as intended imo.
0 references
24
Increasing maximum quorum should increase the percentage of successful proposals that are hell yes initiatives. Why fund marginal controversial proposals when there are plenty of great ones passing nearly unanimously?
0 references
Reasons given in my newsletter: https://paragraph.xyz/@thebower/active-governance-noun-582-6
0 references
17
Think 20% is even low
0 references
Generally in favor of the principle of making contentious votes require greater overall participation from the whole community, and I think the mirror post does a good job explaining such. The open question I have is why not make something more gradient, as outlined in mirror post? I dont think its necessary for us to have to vote for each new threshold ad hoc - hopefully we can have a (potentially quadratic) algorithm to accomplish that dynamically. Id also throw in the idea that similar to a gradient for required consensus, we adopt a gradient for proposed funding. Again, I am for this proposal, but just wanted to offer some things to think about.
0 references
I prepared this document to help make a decision: https://twitter.com/JoelCares_/status/1643017030042370049 I agree with Noun 40 in that Im mostly interested in Dynamic Quorum as a security measure, but understand that ultimately these values are another tool to affect proposal outcomes. We recently implemented a vote threshold in Nouncil and have increasingly voted to abstain in Nouns DAO when our internal threshold is not met. Its a bit disheartening to have the majority vote FOR and then process an abstain because our vote didnt meet threshold, both for the proposers and the voters. There is a social consequence to the DAO in modifying these values and I would advocate for experimenting with smaller changes.
0 references
Dynamic quorum was established to address governance attacks, not to raise the hell yes threshold. Its limited use indicates effectiveness, and modifying a functional governance system by raising the maximum quorum limits our risk/reward profile, potentially excluding rewarding projects like Explorer Grants that have benefited Nouns.
0 references
Dont think this is necessary/mostly agree with Drews takes on Hell yes voting. More shots at a possibly lower hit rate is probably better for the DAOs current state than the inverse (which this prop is aiming to achieve). The Hell Yes ideology makes sense for individuals, for whom time is a scarce resource that moves one-dimensionally. Time is not right now a scarce resource for the DAO, because we have the advantage of accessing the concurrent time of everyone who is currently working on/building for Nouns (so time moves two-dimensionally for NounsDAO). I hope that makes sense lol
0 references
This is an unnecessary change.
0 references
Increasing quorum will reduce the number of weird, innovative things that Nouns funds - not everything good is a hell yes from the whole DAO (shoutout to Drew for his thoughtful voting reason that shaped our thinking).
0 references
Reasoning: https://twitter.com/krel404/status/1643186267239198720?s=20
0 references
22
if you read all the dialogue surrounding WHY we implemented dynamic quorum (compiled here: https://twitter.com/noun40__/status/1644116800366321665), it really wasnt to raise the hell yes threshold. it was to make governance attacks that leverage voter apathy more expensive. so I dont quite agree with the rationale here that we should raise it since we didnt get to use it much. like we dont think veto isnt being useful right now (and we need to make it be used more for that reason). put differently, the best outcome for a security feature is that it doesnt get used. so dynamic quorum is serving its intended purpose right now imo. raising the maximum quorum % also makes it easier for a malicious minority to troll (e.g. if a 10% voting block votes NO on everything, 2x that number (20%) needs to show up to vote YES to pass something).
0 references
This slows DAO spend, building, and proliferation, to the benefit of the book value crowd that wants to rage quit.
0 references
At first I thought I would vote for this--dynamic quorum is already in place, and why not bump it up a bit to ensure higher conviction on proposals? But after catching up on all the background and thinking a bit more, I am against. I actually think I am against any dynamic quorum. I do not think it is offering meaningful risk protection: proposals are watched pretty closely and I think there is near 0 risk someone drains the treasury due to low voter turn out. Functionally, dynamic quorum serves to privilege against votes. Up to the dynamic quorum max, every vote against basically counts as two votes for. To me this seems unfair and is uncommon to all IRL dominant functioning forms of democracy that I am aware of. So, in addition to being against this prop, I think I would be in favor of setting the quorum max = quorum min to address that these odd incentives affect the DAO much more than the hypothetical risk we are trying to guard against.
0 references
First-time voter here, and Im starting off my time by expressing opposition to the idea of hell yes voting. While I understand the importance of creating a quorum function that represents the DAOs interests as a whole, I believe that the DAOs best interests lie in being open to anyone interested in building. A DAO that becomes too focused on hell yes votes is a DAO that receives less attention and energy. Some of the best innovations have been born out of skepticism and doubt.
0 references
161
0 references
261
0 references
99
0 references
30 March 2023
0 references
Dynamic Quorum Updates
0 references
139
0 references
Dynamic Quorum Updates --- --- **TL;DR - increase max quorum from 15% to 20%** --- --- **Dynamic Quorum Parameter Updates** --- As articulated in this [detailed post]( three parameters need to be set for dynamic quorum. --- --- CURRENT SETTINGS --- 1. **Minimum quorum %:** currently set to 10% --- 2. **Maximum quorum %:** currently set to 15% --- 3. **Coefficient:** currently set to 1, such that each against vote raises the quorum requirement by one vote, until the maximum quorum is reached. --- --- PROPOSED SETTINGS --- 1. **Minimum quorum %:** 10% (no change) --- 2. **Maximum quorum %:** set to 20% --- 3. **Coefficient:** 1 (no change) --- --- RATIONALE --- 1. Dynamic quorum was designed so that contentious proposals would require a higher degree of support. --- 2. Maximum quorum is currently too low to have changed the outcome of any recent proposals. --- 3. Increasing maximum quorum should increase the percentage of successful proposals that are "hell yes" initiatives. --- --- PROPOSAL TRANSACTIONS --- `_setDynamicQuorumParams`: sets dynamic quorum params to: --- 1. Minimum quorum BPs: 10% (1000 basis points) (no change). --- 1. Maximum quorum BPs: 20% (2000 basis points). --- 1. Coefficient: 1 (1,000,000 in unsigned integer with 6 decimal places) (no change).
0 references
30 March 2023
0 references
Poll failed to meet vote threshold. **FOR - 16 VOTES** **AGAINST - 21 VOTES** **profwerder** | *Well first of all, it’s not quorum so let’s stop using that word. It’s threshold or dynamic yes.* *And also just NO. This is clearly part of a larger strategy to slow spending which would stall proliferation. No need to adjust the threshold at this time.* **Benbodhi** | *I think its already at a pretty good spot for contentious props for now.* **EltonPenguin** | *Seems important*
0 references
8
0 references
1
0 references
The text does not provide information on the name of the team or builder that
0 references
This is awesome, thank you. Seems the proposed parameters are a nice middle ground?
0 references
