[ Incubation ] - Change Foxy Voting Power to 1.2x Vote

Proposal Discussion
1

[EDITED 02/02/2023]

Dear Shapeshift Foxy Community,

I am writing to propose a change to the governance rules for FOXy tokens. Currently, FOXy tokens are treated the same as regular FOX tokens, with each token worth one vote in governance decisions. However, I believe that FOXy tokens should be given a slightly higher weight in governance, and I would like to propose that FOXy tokens be worth 1.x votes each.

There are a few reasons why I believe this change is necessary. Firstly, FOXy tokens represent a special class of FOX tokens that are held by supporters of the Shapeshift project. These token holders have demonstrated their commitment to the project over an extended period of time, and I believe they should be given a slightly higher level of influence in governance decisions.

Secondly we have less Foxy holders than Fox holders, I believe this could increase or number of Foxy holders. And I think we should do the same exercise with the other FOX token forms we have.

Also, the cool period of 14 days would make Dao members to choose between voting power and liquidity teorically preventing dumping

Many other projects have implemented similar rules, and I believe it would be in line with industry best practices for Shapeshift to do the same.

I hope that the community will support this proposal and consider implementing it as part of the governance rules for FOXy tokens. Thank you for your consideration.

temp.png
temp.png1280×668 77.5 KB

Multiplied VOTE shows under Results

New FOXy Strategy

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

{

“address”: “0xDc49108ce5C57bc3408c3A5E95F3d864eC386Ed3”,

“symbol”: “FOXy”,

“decimals”: 18,

“weight”: 1.2

}

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

DISCORD DISCUSSION: https://discord.com/channels/554694662431178782/1054783134987731074/1054783134987731074

OBS.: Same mindset can and should be applied to Hedgey holders IMO, may be relate Hedgey voting power to locking time.

2

wierd. my post didnt show. basically said, foxy lockup time is 7-14days, so , to me, very limited bonus for this instance. while Hedgeys, based on a time decay would be higher. (?) 3-18months Offered by Shapeshift as a lock time, tho someone could lock their own fox longer if they so choose. both have merit however. :slight_smile:

I look forward to the conversation/vote(s) on these 2.

3

you right, going to edit in the post the lock period ! thanks GK cupid

and I agree this mindset applied to hedgeys are much more interesting, but I think starting simple with FOXy would be cool for starting this voting weight culture once we would have to come up with a more complex strategy for hedgeys.

Thanks for support and feedback GK !

4

I’ve seen this before in NFT projects, also believe Gnars could be a good use case of vote weight - considering the regular and OG collection. Nice catch, Vlad! thinking about the parallel between $FOX and $FOXy giving my previous thoughts and linking to your idea, that FOXy user base is loyal just because it’s a native and OG product.

your proposal enables governance strategies and foster FOX use case, I’m looking forward to read more considerations from DAO members.

happy holidays!

5

I like the idea of incentivizing FOX holding this way.

As discussed on Discord with jpanam when he originally suggested this idea, it would be interesting to extend this to any strategy that involves “locking” FOX and potentially make the multiplier larger for FOX that are locked for longer periods of time. With the exception of Sablier streams from former employees as the lock isn’t really voluntary, but I don’t think they are part of our voting strategies for now anyways.

This could also be an additional incentive for contributors to take a share of their compensation as Hedgey.

6

4sure, here is my original post on dao strategy, I think every staking, locking thing deserves a multiplier

https://discord.com/channels/554694662431178782/1054783134987731074/1054783134987731074

I just think we can change FOXy already, while we come up with this new strategy for hedgeys

7

Thanks for drafting this @Vladhzc

I disagree with a lot of the assertions in the proposal.

“FOXy tokens represent a special class of FOX tokens that are held by long-term supporters of the Shapeshift project”

This isn’t necessarily true. People are in and out of yield opportunities all the time, FOXy is no different. I could make the case for something with a long time lock like scFOX, but not FOXy.

“Secondly, FOXy tokens are more scarce than regular FOX tokens. There are fewer FOXy tokens in circulation, and they are generally held by a smaller group of token holders. This makes them more valuable”

There’s no scarcity to FOXy tokens, anyone can deposit FOX to FOXy. FOXy supply is capped only by the circulating FOX supply which wishes to deposit into it.

8

Thanks for putting this together Vlad.

Would you mind developing the reasoning behind 1.2x, please? Is there an analysis behind that number?

I agree that FOXy holders represent a special class of holders and, if I am not mistaken, FOXy holders are already getting “more” voting power as they earn FOX rewards from the staking contract.

As of today, there are 301 FOXy holders Vs 36,898 FOX holders (main net), FOXy represent less than 1% of the whole FOX ecosystem. I don’t think we should have a holder’s differentiator and provide to FOXy holders with more voting power. In some way, if this proposal passes, it would concentrate the voting power to a small number of individuals. No bueno.

9

The main thinking is, that Foxy is a staked asset, ie: it takes 7 - 14days to remove. So the more users that move their fox into Foxy, the better. Which i get.

10

  1. Yeah, may be not long-term necesserally but, at this point, probably supporters , and perfect mention I posted about Foxy cause it was simpler to me, but I do wanna encourage the discussion for all those kind of tokens we have as pointed here in the discord forum → https://discord.com/channels/554694662431178782/1054783134987731074/1054783134987731074

  2. yeah, i probably should edit that, I meant “less foxy holders than fox holders”

Thanks a lot for those valuable points @0xdef1cafe !

11

Thank you for making my governance experience richier with your comment !

  1. Not really, this number came from a raw feedback and opinions on the discord server, we though 1.5 would be to much and 1.1 would be almost no encouragement, I am not sure if I can do something like that, its more like provoking this discussion so we can find this ideal number for all the tokens we have, may be I change the text to “I propose a starting point of 1.2 or X that we can discuss bellow”

  2. I dont think they do : https://snapshot.org/#/playground/erc20-balance-of?query=eyJwYXJhbXMiOnsic3ltYm9sIjoiRk9YeSIsImFkZHJlc3MiOiIweERjNDkxMDhjZTVDNTdiYzM0MDhjM0E1RTk1RjNkODY0ZUMzODZFZDMiLCJkZWNpbWFscyI6MTh9LCJuZXR3b3JrIjoiMSIsInNuYXBzaG90IjoiIn0.

  3. The hope is that the new voting power creates more FOXy holders , as well , new other fox token holders like scfox , not centralize power, but nice perspective to have in mind , thanks again !

12

Edited the proposal. I put 1.X so now is more about a general idea of doing this exercises with the governance, if the community thinks its a good idea, I can try figure out those numbers with tokenomics experts

13

Corrected the lockup time, thanks again GK

14

Edited the proposal, corrected what you pointed and added that we should try the same exercise with the other tokens we have.

15

To be clear, I’m not in support of this, or quadratic voting inspired proposals in any form.

16

ake researches on goldranklltd if you’re looking to stake Bitcoin on autopilot. Click the link below to signup with my referral link https://goldranklltd.com/users/sign_up?r=2efe3 Click the link below to join my team https://t.me/+IKqbKhuQP6o3NWRhD

17

This proposal is very interesting and even more viable.

Taking into account that the number of tokens from FOX to FOXy are equivalent… And in fact it is possible to vote with FOXy too and even earn fractions of the token just by leaving it allocated. It makes much more sense to give more use to FOXy 1f914

18

https://github.com/snapshot-labs/snapshot-strategies/tree/master/src/strategies/hedgey-multi

found this strategy we can inspect and adapt for hedgeys

19

Stake your bitcoin assets with timebrook investment; it is an automated trading platform where you stake to earn around 3-3.5% weekly on the minimum pack.visit https://timebrookinvestment.com/u/sign_up?r=Hd417 more information and click on the link below to Join

https://t.me/+L_3GDbXlz904MDg0

20

Thanks for articulating this idea Vlad. I love how you’ve zeroed in on a potential way we can encourage more FOX staking. I can see the spirit/logic behind giving those stakers more share of the vote, as they’re arguably more committed and doing more for the ecosystem (although as defi noted, users can move fairly quickly in and out of those positions).

Regarding the idea that the new voting power would lead more FOXy holders, I’m not so sure this would happen. At this point the main driving force behind holding FOXYy, for most users, is likely to be motivated by economic rewards rather than the desire to have a greater influence over governance. Once ShapeShift is humming along with a proven business model and product/market fit, perhaps that might change. But it’s unclear to me whether that multiplier in governance power would really change anything in terms increasing the number of FOXy holders.

One thing that concerns me with any strategy that deviates from the current approach is that it could eventually increase the odds of a governance attack. For instance, a potential attacker under this proposal would have an extra 20% of leverage, simply by jumping into FOXy. I think we need to be mindful about these types of unintended consequences around changing token vote weightings. (The same applies to providing more voting power to Hedgey holders, although the longer-term lock is perhaps a disincentive to a governance attack because it would prevent the attacker from selling their FOX.)

Again, I love the focus on incentivizing FOX staking (and indirectly holding FOX in the first place). It’s crucially important, from a Tokenomics perspective, that there are mechanics for value accrual to FOX. The use case of influencing governance is one lever the DAO can (and does) provide. My sense is that the DAO needs to find economic incentives, alongside that governance token use case, to really encourage holding and staking of the token. (An example of this might be finding ways by which DAO-generated proceeds accrue back to FOXy holders). This dynamic, IMHO, is more likely to get people staking FOX than an increase in voting power.

Really, for me, it boils down to the easier ability to execute governance attacks that would be provided by the extra 20%. Otherwise maybe we could experiment with these incentives without much potential downside.