Astar Townhall - Offchain Governance

Astar Network (Polkadot)
42

I’d like to discuss the matter of this vote being passed by two whales.

I’m concerned about the possibility of similar situations occurring in the future. While I have no objections since this vote was conducted according to the rules, it does raise some concerns.

43

Hi Bao, indeed, I also am concerned about such a situation.
I have been thinking about potential means after doing some research, and let me share some of them.

  • Quadratic Voting: Using this quadratic approach, voting power would be determined by the square root of the ASTR held. This way, even smaller wallets could have relatively high voting power compared to a single entity with a large amount of ASTR. This approach could encourage more community members to participate, as they might feel their votes carry more weight, rather than feeling like their participation (vote) is negligible.
  • Voting Power Cap: While it may seem too simplistic, having a cap on voting power could be a straightforward solution worth discussing.
  • Activity History in the Astar Network Ecosystem: We could also consider the number of txs or the frequency of reward claims as a measure of a voter’s engagement in the ecosystem. This could help ensure that those who have been consistently active in the network have more influence.

Of course, there are still potential challenges, such as the possibility of users splitting their ASTR across multiple wallets to maximize their voting power under a quadratic system. However, I believe exploring and discussing these options could lead to meaningful improvements, if necessary.

2 Likes
44

That is a good suggestion.

In addition to that, I believe that there should be a quorum.
However, given the current rate of participation in governance, if there is a quorum, the proposal will not be able to decide anything. It would need to be possible to delegate to use this.

1 Like
45

Totally agree , I don’t think is a good image for Astar. I mean the vote passed after a whale vote , where is no difference with Dot governance at this point and the whole narrative of decentralization falls apart. I like the points You have shared but on the other side is really easy to create a brand new wallet and ¨participate¨ in anonymous way. We definitely need to find a good solution which feets everybody (new joiners and present users)

2 Likes
46

Thank you for providing specific methods.
I think we should delve deeper into the discussion about the “Activity History in the Astar Network Ecosystem.”

Looking at the voting history of the two whales, I found that they had only participated in this particular vote.

If we could weaken the voting power of wallets that don’t regularly participate in governance, and conversely strengthen the voting power of actively participating wallets, we might see an increase in governance participants and avoid biased results like we had this time.

We also need a more comprehensive approach to address the whale issue, so as you425 suggests, we should implement a “delegate” system. In other words, it means creating multiple trustworthy delegates who collectively have enough voting power to counterbalance the whales.

1 Like
47

That’s a fair point but also "skin in the game"is something we should consider… whales have strong conviction in ASTR we can just ignore it.

2 Likes
48

That’s a great point. I feel we need to implement a delegate system to be able to communicate with whales on an equal footing.

1 Like
49

Good debate guys, I had already announced some time ago that the voting system in polkadot was flawed, we should not replicate that same system, look how polkadot is, they have emptied the treasury the whales, finding a balance point would be totally healthy and acceptable.

Right now a solution could be included without limiting the participation of the community, but if from the “whales”, the delegates thing sounds good but in view of my long following of the voting system in polkadot I can add:

  1. a system of reversal of decisions in case of abuse by the whales, that there be a technical congress to determine if indeed the approval of a proposal is healthy for the ecosystem.
  2. I do not have much confidence in the delegate system, since abuse can be repeated.
  3. I know there may be controversy since the congress is somewhat centralized, but Astar is not mature enough to assume 100% of this system, it is a reality that we must adjust the system as we go along.
  4. My comments may cause discomfort but I would rather get wet now and not see Astar in the same condition as the Polkadot treasury is right now.
1 Like
50

Decentralization is not lack of direction - I am totally in favor of a council having something like 50% of the weight votes and community having 50% of the weight votes. And the council should be formed by X number of seats representing Astar Foundation, Startale, Ecosystem Agents, etc… I am just thinking out loud and trying to figure it out a way to combine the two models.

2 Likes
51

I believe that decentralization is dangerous if there is no proper direction, just look at Polkadot. It really is a disgrace what their governance became. I agree that a council should be formed to evaluate proper decisions after all the treasury is for the benefit of the protocol not a few.

1 Like
52

These are very insightful points.

I agree with you that by discussing it now, we can avoid repeating past mistakes.

Instead of a simple delegate system that reflects token numbers, a system where people who are delegated a certain number of tokens have one voting right could prevent abuse.

53

This idea is excellent. Having two council could prevent unreasonable proposals from being passed.