[SCP-97] Modifying Ideation Polling

Summary

Our current forum based polling (that has been a stopgap in the absence of boardroom) does not accurately represent our official snapshot voting where 1 FOX is equivalent to 1 vote. This proposal would move ideation to snapshot to remove this discrepancy and ensure that ideation polling accurately captures token holders sentiment.

Abstract

Our forum based polling doesn’t ensure voters are FOX holders nor does it have any sybil resistance. In theory, this could be used as a way to manipulate the DAO’s governance process. Forum polls have meant to be a temporary solution that has lasted too long. If passed, this proposal would leverage snapshot voting to mitigate these risks. An ideation post would now include a link to a snapshot vote that is tagged with [Ideation] in the title. For example, a title would now read [SCP-99][Ideation] Modifying Ideation Polling for an Ideation vote and the official vote would read [SCP-99] Modifying Ideation Polling.

Motivation

Ideation polling should be identical to the final snapshot vote from FOX token holders. Technically, this is the simplest way we can achieve this today. It eliminates the risk of manipulation of our governance process that currently exists with the forum where anyone is able to vote regardless of their FOX holdings and we lack protection from a sybil attack.

Specification

  1. Each ideation post will now include a link to an ideation snapshot vote
  2. This ideation snapshot vote will be tagged with [Ideation] in the title
  3. This ideation snapshot vote will be the deciding factor if a proposal goes to the final snapshot voting process

Benefits

We will close the risks associated with forum based polling in a simple manner that requires no additional tooling to our DAO stack.

Drawbacks

The user experience may be a bit harder for new governance participants and it adds some trivial amount of complexity when creating a new proposal.

Links

Link to Incubation Post and Discussion

  • Yes - modify our ideation polling process to use snapshot
  • No - leave our ideation polling on the forum

0 voters

1 Like

During the governance call today it was suggested that the mutability of the forum posts is beneficial to the ideation phase and we would not want to lose that functionality by posting an immutable blob of text in snapshot for voting.

The suggestion was to modify this proposal to allow the body of the snapshot vote in ideation to link back to the forum so it can be modified as discussion occurs.

Here is an alternate version of the Specification to this proposal to make it include this idea.

Specification

  1. Each ideation post will now include a link to an ideation snapshot vote
  2. This ideation snapshot vote will be tagged with [Ideation] in the title and contain a link back to the forum for the official text of the proposal being voted on to allow for modification during the process
  3. This ideation snapshot vote will be the deciding factor if a proposal goes to the final snapshot voting process

Not sure if this needs another poll but will throw it up anyways.

  • Yes - modify with these changes to link back to forum
  • No - lets use snapshot as originally outlined
  • No - still don’t like any of this, leave the process alone.

0 voters

I rather would suggest a more wallet(holder) & balance related vote count, but with exponential weighting.
eg.: wallet gives 1 Vote, balance is counted by Exp10, means 0.1-10 adding 1Vote, 10.1-100 adding 1Vote, 100.1-1000 adding 1Vote 1000.1-10,000 adding 1Vote …
wallet A with 8FOX has a power of 2 (1+1)
wallet B with 600000FOX has a power of 6 (1+1+1+1+1+1)

reason: ‘wales’ and ex-shapeshift workers might hold the most and are also heavily involved in voting. (That shifts the DAO back to the corporate system, where shareholders have a very small power, when the company holds the majority of shares)

hmm, if someone wants to talk with me about that, Discord: D©evil

2 Likes

Hey @DJevil -

Thanks for the feedback. I think this is something that Hunt was addressing in one of his earlier comments during incubation as well.

While my proposal does reference our current 1 VOTE = 1 FOX algorithm that has been in place since inception, it doesn’t aim to change it, just get back to the original idea so ideation matches the final snapshot process. I do think considering different weighting algorithm is a worthwhile conversation and was involved with another DAO that had a very different structure in the past that was meant to avoid large holders from swaying votes drastically. I don’t think it was ideal either and certainly wasn’t resistant to manipulation with wallet splitting, etc.

Maybe it would be worthwhile to you if you feel strongly about the topic, to throw together a new post that is focused on how we weight votes overall in the governance process. Ultimately, if the weighting is changed it would have to be changed in snapshot, and this proposal would still reflect that updated weighting.

0xean

1 Like

Unfortunately this isn’t Sybil resistant either.

Now I can take a wallet with 1 million FOX and split it into 100,000 wallets with 10 FOX (contrived example)

I now have 100,000 votes instead of 6.

Now ideation can fail but would have passed in snapshot.

1 Like

if you do split to 1 million wallets and have to login to all wallets just for 1 vote, well either you have too much time, or you deserve it - for the work you d put in lol

1 Like

This is trivial to automate.

Again, the example is contrived, but if it took it a step further and snapshot was automatically executing transactions attached to proposals and this was a malicious proposal, it could be game over for the DAO.

We have to be extremely careful designing these mechanisms.

This is the thing with crypto, if it can happen, it will happen.

1 Like

I totally agree, and this was an entry by me not because of the actual proposal, but fits to the subject.
I hope you understand my point, that the votes from small holders should be kind of equally to wales…some sort of.
PS: I voted :wink:

2 Likes

I definitely understand the point and appreciate the conversation and your vote.

1 Like

You should split 1m into 100,000 wallets on main net rn

lol jk, but that would cost a lot.

To address @DJevil - Yeah I agree with you there, It’s a rough feeling when you don’t feel like votes count. The reality of the problem at hand is that the security issue necessarily has to be priority, while the issue that you bring up is also very much critical in my opinion as well. The destruction/harm of the latter would be a longer time-frame imo though, so addressing one then the other makes logical sense to me to some degree.

1 Like

I tried to move this to snapshot today but am having some trouble signing with my trezor on snapshot. I will get it moved over once resolved.

1 Like