If I’ve misunderstood something, then please correct me and close/remove this thread.
I will use VLS as an example since the team agreed with the dApp delisting. However, I am seeing almost no participation in the governance decisions. https://astar.subsquare.io/democracy/referenda/5
In the following image, the turnout was 0.03%. So 1.91m ASTR determined a governance issue. This seems wildly low, especially given VLS by itself has 32m ASTR staked on their dApp. Again, VLS was pretty much a given, but there are similar values across the other referenda.
A second issue with the above image, which just may be my misunderstanding, is that the total turnout does not equal the aye and nay ASTR. 1.91 + 0 != 2.55. Could just be that the total turnout is the maximum available ASTR in the wallets of those voting instead of the total ASTR used in the vote? https://astar.subscan.io/referenda_vote/5?
In the following image we are seeing ‘votes’ of 0 ASTR. I’m unsure the reason for this or why that is allowed at all. Maybe just to show they want the vote to pass/fail, but do not have the tokens available to vote with?
(upload://cSNJTYNlsDCJJXFdBWn4LRX3FbK.png)
More than happy to be shown this is not an issue, but if this is the actual turnout for governance decisions, then we have a lot of work ahead of us to get people to participate or decisions will just be made by a few.
We have written the same thing several times and always received the same answer, that is, that anyone can change things on astar with proposals, I think it is time for these people to answer honestly about it, and at least tell us what they intend to do to improve, what are their ideas about it, have they only opened this new channel or before opening it did they think about where they wanted to get to? Because as you say, without real interest it makes no sense.
Everything starts from staking and dapp staking. But unfortunately they will tell you that these are unrelated things.
You are more than right. No need to remove this thread.
We had an internal discussion and I also raised this to our Astar Community team. @cryptoium, @Gaius_sama can you share the concept you have been working on? It would be great to also share the direction here on the forum.
I will use VLS as an example since the team agreed with the dApp delisting. However, I am seeing almost no participation in the governance decisions.
Hi there!
Thanks for bringing this up. You’re right that participation in some governance decisions, like the VLS delisting referendum, has been low compared to the total amount of ASTR staked.
To help improve this, we’ve recently started a Governance Announcements and Discussions channel on Discord. Users can stay informed about governance proposals and have open discussions about them.
We’d love to see you there as well and more participation will help make governance decisions better reflect the community’s voice.
Let me share the full scope about what we are doing to improve, let me know what you think @tora0515
Astar Governance Proposal Announcement & Discussion Guide for Discord
This post outlines how to effectively manage governance-related discussions in Astar Discord community, with a focus on encouraging engagement, driving traffic to governance forums, and supporting impactful proposals.
Governance Channels
Dedicated Channels
#governance-announcements: For official announcements of new proposals.
#governance-discussions: For community discussions about proposals.
Channel Permissions
Restricted to posting in #governance-announcements to Astar Foundation team members only and in future to Council Members.
Allow open discussions in #governance-discussions but enforce strict adherence to the rules of engagement.
This is great, thank you. I will only comment on areas that I feel could be strengthened.
Governance Channel
Risk of disjointed and disperse discussions: Currently the Forum and Subsquare have spaces for discussion. This guide recommends creating a third location for discussion without removing the other two.
Recommendation: Choose a single source of truth for discussions and point members there. I would suggest keeping the Forum as the initiation point of discussion and use the new discord discussion channel to introduce members to the forum through Forum hyperlinks based on discussion points in that channel.
Why: The Forum is where nearly all proposals/requests/governance/etc… are already originating. Discord is where people go to learn or ask help. Subsquare has not been used by many people yet, and especially for anything outside of voting or making a comment to say how they voted. This makes the Forum the natural focal point for governance discussions and allows the Discord channel to continue to function as a gateway to knowledge (pointing to the forum) and Subsquare to focus on voting.
Announcing New Proposals
Risk of duplicate effort and transfer error
Recommendation: Create a clear and concise proposal format guide on the forum that can be easily transferred to the discord channel formatting. Be sure this is in a sticky post and require thread originators to edit proposals that do not fit the format before further discussion takes place.
Why: This will reduce the additional work of reproducing all proposal content for moderators as well as reduce human error in transposing information.
Driving Discussion
Moderator risk
Recommendation: Moderators on the forum and in the governance discussion channel should have clearly defined roles and responsibilities to ensure consistency across platforms.
Why: Within this Forum, it is unclear who has what authority in terms of engagement, redirecting conversations, closing threads, etc., and when they should be used. Providing clear guidance to moderators and the community will help reduce these types of issues and keep warnings and penalties consistent.
Reporting
Suggestion: Be flexible with your periodic status updates. There will be periods of increased proposal activity and periods where only a few proposals are made. I would recommend sticking to weekly reports at first as the formation of the new Community Council will most likely lead to some increased action. When this cools off, it may be worth reducing reporting monthly to save manpower and over-updating the community.
Suggestion: It may be worth reaching out to high-profile members in the community such as Astar Bulletin or those with large Astar-based social media accounts, to have them create writeups on the team’s efforts at improving governance and all that is changing. This could be expanded later to key accounts proving additional community updates on major proposals.
Outside the scope of your reply content but something we may want to start a new thread on
The governance page in the Astar docs should be carefully reviewed and updated. Briefly, there are some issues that could use a clearer definition, especially around standardizing voting periods, and specific Committee/Council powers and limitations.
I’m also unsure if there is a user-friendly (non-technical) guide for members on how to use Subsquare. Both for those looking to create proposals/referendums/etc. and those looking to vote. Something with pictures, or that could fit on an infographic and is easily digestible.
*Edited cause I am horrible at formatting here. Hopefully the dotpoints help break up the text And I forgot to click the correct ‘Reply’ button to @Maarten … oh boy.
These are some excellent points, and I completely agree that simplifying and streamlining our approach will enhance transparency and user engagement.
Governance Channel: Centralizing discussions around the Forum while using Discord as a gateway to direct users there is a sound recommendation. It avoids fragmentation and leverages the Forum’s established role as the hub for proposals and governance discussions.
Announcing New Proposals: A standardized proposal format guide is a fantastic idea. Having a clear template for proposals across platforms ensures consistency and reduces the chances of errors. Making it a sticky post and enforcing adherence before discussions begin is a practical step.
Driving Discussion: Defining moderator roles and responsibilities more clearly will help maintain a consistent experience for users. It’s crucial to ensure moderators are aligned across platforms to reduce confusion and enforce policies effectively.
Reporting: Flexibility in reporting frequency based on activity levels is a great suggestion to balance keeping the community informed while minimizing unnecessary workload. Involving high-profile community members for broader reach is another excellent idea.
Lastly, the need for a review of the governance documentation and user guides is very valid. Clear, user-friendly resources—especially on Subsquare usage—will lower barriers to participation and empower more members to engage actively.
These steps will help create a more cohesive and transparent governance framework that serves the community better. We should prioritize these improvements!
Feel free to adjust or expand this comment as needed!
And I forgot to click the correct ‘Reply’ button to