Can we build an on-chain voting solution?
Wouldn’t it make sense if decisions on ASTR treasury was decided by the actual holders of ASTR.
There seems to be an influx of bots that have signed up to the forum recently, so allowing in-forum voting seems a bit flawed.
Can we build an on-chain voting solution?
This is decentralized and best for all. I vote for this too !!!
I agree… we need to have a better voting system… if not , anyone can just create an account to chat and vote.
I strongly agree this
I don’t understand what you mean, the level that allows you to vote is issued on certain activity. I didn’t see bots posting here. But there is no problem to create 1000 addresses and scatter Astar over them.
This is very easy to say but hard to implement. Please give us a clearer idea. What does the on-chain voting look like?
There are many people who have an Astar token and don’t understand Astar, and even more who don’t understand what a blockchain is. Remember the story of Inu and Doge, do you think those who came from TikTok to Inu or Doge understand what is going on? Imagine if these people will vote for the distribution of the treasury. Only those who are interested in and understand Astar should be able to vote. A person may be interested in the project to be useful and not have Astar tokens. And how to track whether I have Astar or not, liquidity pools, farms, exchanges, wrapped tokens. Or are those who have tokens on centralized exchanges unable to vote?
And raise the level if the person is really interested, in the Starlay vote I saw both those who just spam for the sake of the level, and those who do not understand what they are talking about.
You can make a voting platform, which can be accessed not only at the forum level, but again there must be interest or knowledge, some kind of quiz or something else that increases knowledge about Astara, but again, bots can take quizzes. And the retention of tokens is not an indicator, for 4 years in the crypt I have repeatedly held tokens of a project that did not interest me, these were just speculations.
Like discussed in the latest community call, we are fine-tuning our governance implementation and will be available this year on Shiden. We want to work step by step with governance.
All votings today only council have permission or level 2 users. Bots cant vote on those voting because of the trust level. Even those who joined this month still haven’t been able to move to level 2 because of the settings.
This is my opinion with on-chain vote with its native token.
If we take Solend, or Luna as examples, sad to say but it is easier to manipulate.
Setting up to level 2 could be the best solution.
But if we zoomed out,
we already have a NFT collection that represents Astar network, and it is from Astar team itself, Astar Pass NFT.
You could take a snapshot and grant the holders at the time the right to vote on Governance dapp like Snapshot would be an option.
With the factors,
- Limited supply + no inflation
- Only those who would like to participate in Governance vote will hold.
- Fair drop since it is reward to those who joined dAppstaking and it is now trading on Marketplace.
I kinda like the idea of an percentage based on-chain points based system…
1 ASTR = 70% of voting power
Lockdrop 1 = 10% of voting power
Lockdrop 2 = 10% of voting power
Own a degen NFT = 1% of voting power
Deployed a smart contract = 1% of voting power
Joined the forum = 1% of voting power
In the discord = 1% of voting power
Telegram = 1% of voting power
Verified on-chain identity = 5% of voting power
A snapshot style voting system is the most popular currently…
I proposed this percentage based VP system to the decentraland community and it was approved…
Just some ideas…
I could probably put something deeper together given the time…
Open to some discussions though…
Why is your proposal good, you proposed, but did not write what problems it solves. You talked about bots, but a bot cannot get the level required for voting.
According to your suggestion
Where is decentralization? The outcome of the vote is decided by 10 wallets, figuratively speaking. To be honest, your proposal solves nothing, this proposal does not improve anything, it only complicates. Same as decision making by validators or node holders. NFT does not say that you understand something, discord, telegram, personality, nor does it say about the quality of the voice. All this only says that you have completed the necessary actions that do not bring you closer to understanding the network, and are of no value.
Don’t think I’m attacking, I just want to understand.
Here’s what I’m talking about, an example of the result of your suggestion.
The overwhelming majority voted in favor, but the weight of the vote was on the side of the minority. Moreover, such a large advantage that the majority does not decide anything, 3% of the weight, this is humiliating, what is the point of voting at all with such a difference in weight. In the same way, when everything is decided by validators.
Yeah this example is why I’m proposing voting power based on the amount of skin that USERs have in the game.
Anyone can spin up multiple accounts here and accumulate power over decisions that might not benefit the ASTR holders/community.
The people that have more assets at risk should be the ones that make decisions. I don’t really understand the counter argument to this.
In the proposal you have highlighted. There was an overwhelmingly negative response from highly invested founders and developers. These are the guys that should really be making decisions on where $60,000 should be going… Not the bots that are accumulating votes…
A lot of founders and devs are already making educational content for free about development and the founders don’t see the need…
The majority of the YES votes came from people that had between $0 and $500. Snapshot
This is also why I have included 30% of different ways of accumulating power in the votes. This is to make the system less biased towards those that have too much $ and the actual community… It is all an original idea that was created by me =D
I just gave an example of voting, and a specific vote is debatable here, and probably you shouldn’t give 60k, but for the essence I gave an example, not 1 such vote, but we will not analyze all the votes.
We understood that you are proud of your idea.) But I don’t understand what is its originality, that there is no decentralization?
Now I will describe why there is nothing interesting here.
In fact, you say that large investors are our salvation, but here I am generally surprised.
Now just examples.
10 big wallets cannot belong to 1 or 2 people, do you personally know that they are different people? Are you sure that a large investor is necessarily useful, and cannot just speculate on the price? You saw how whales just kill projects, and how people are afraid of the actions of big wallets, and no one likes centralization.
Now, speaking of the blockchain, the creators of projects on Ethereum or any other blockchain that has shown itself, were all these people large holders of the token? Do you think they had less weight than those who collapsed ETH from $1700 to $80, who was more useful for projects? Do you think decision making should be left to people like Alameda? Some projects just fell apart, some simply because they saw an opportunity to make money.
Investors are not incubators, they are not required to understand how the project will develop, decisions should be made by those who understand how things work.
I am in favor of a more complex system of weight distribution than just giving all decisions to large investors and bots creating heaps of social media accounts.
Astar has more flexibility than the metaverse. And on it, voting can be much more flexible.
You can use something like karma or nft with different weights.
At the beginning of the journey, investors and the team can be given the main power in voting with the possibility of diluting, adding weight to new members of the community.
For example, you can attach great importance if it is a developer or part of a team of large projects created on Astar. They may not have a token, but their value is just as important.
Teams like PromoTeam, group creators, and admins can have high vote value. For example, you may be able to vote if you are an early user or tester on Astar projects.
In general, it is possible to create a very extensive system of votes, with a large coverage not only of investors but also of developers and users, and it can be very flexible.
What I’m doing here is taking the currently best solution for a DAO.
Which is widely established by the most popular tokens. Snapshot
Then I’m adding layers on top that can further decentralize the process…
Those extra layers come with different risks of manipulation. So a smaller percentage of power is allocated to different communities. That way if manipulation occurs in one of them communities then the amount of power can be changed by the rest of the ASTR community.
Imagine Binance wanted to pass something through the DAO…
They probably have a lot of ASTR so it wouldn’t be difficult…
They could only gain 70% of the votes in favour of a proposal if no other ASTR holders vote.
It would be unlikely that they would be able to game the DAO…
I’ve been thinking about this proposal for many months and I know it’s the best solution… Having been part of many DAOs in the past…
Imagine that this was the system in modern society…
Those “with money” would decide where the taxes should be spent.
But people forget that they have money themselves. So it’s not just the powerful that would be able to pass votes. You would need the whole range of community to be in favour of proposals.
It’s the best governmental system that has even been proposed, period…
You’re exaggerating, in fact what you’re suggesting is a standard governance token. With small additions that you do not understand how they will be reflected. You started talking about binance, so you forgot to give the right example. When a certain person buys a bunch of tokens, and colludes with the exchange, and votes the way he wants. Haven’t heard such a story? And 70% will not help here. The community helped, which put pressure on the CEO of the exchange.
You bring up your history with the DAO, you understand that a project built on ETH is different from managing ETH itself. That is, it is difficult to come up with something on that Decentraland, and there is nothing to do, 1000 projects on top of Decentraland will not appear.
Let’s imagine an NFT with multiple voting rights.
An example of levels, I will not distribute significance, just a couple of examples to start with.
Investors. You can sort by importance, but at the same time set a ceiling, for example, everyone who has more than 50 million tokens will have the same maximum level, and no matter how many tokens they have, 50 or 500 million, multi-accounts can be controlled, sometimes difficult, but possible. But there are many buts, it all depends on the implementation.
Project teams and influencers. They can get not 1 NFT as the creator of a successful project or channel, but also give them several NFTs of lower levels to distribute as they see fit within the team.
You can encourage voters, no matter how they vote and whatever the result, the very fact of voting is encouraged by bonuses. For example, only large projects can do this. This can be done as standard, or at the discretion of the project itself. This will create interest in voting, so users will be more aware of the projects and what is happening online. In my opinion, this can attract interest in projects, a kind of marketing.
Of course, this is more complicated than a simple governance token, but I believe that a governance token is not suitable for blockchains. For projects of the second level quite.
Naturally, the NFTs themselves must be non-transferable. And these are just a couple of examples, there can be dozens of levels, as well as distribution conditions.
I’m not sure if you fully understand the proposal but thanks for your feedback… We could just blacklist the binance account anyway… I used decentraland as an example of how it would work…
People over there seemed to understand the proposal so I thought it was easier than copy and pasting everything here…
non-transferrable NFTs could be used to gain some voting rights yeah… But if someone decided to create 50 million NFTs to try and game the system… They would only gain 1% of the votes of the total distribution… And then users could vote to remove that 1% for NFT holders… And maybe only pick specific NFT collections…
The only reason for the points is to allow certain proposals to be passed over a specific amount of points but this is kinda unimportant for astar…
Like I said… A lot would need to be worked out still…
I read the thread in Decentraland. Your suggestion is not hard to understand. And what you suggested there is simply the coverage of all assets, so that any asset of the project would have weight.
Will you be able to block the wallets of all exchanges? Is it only exchanges that accumulate user tokens, will you monitor everything and block everything? You yourself admitted the weakness of your proposal.
You are talking about an exploit.)) You could just as well talk about a network token exploit.) Voting lasts more than 1 day, and the vote can be canceled in case of an exploit. You are simply offering a governance token, nothing more. With a small tweak that doesn’t really change anything, small wallets won’t be interested in voting. It’s easier to follow the Astar way, to create a more complex and interesting voting. How dApp Staking was created, not regular Staking or validators.
Okay, I think everyone has already read, you can finish, in any case, we conveyed our thoughts.)
The “weakness” of my proposal is what makes it stronger for regular users of ASTR…
And gives value to assets that would have no value without voting power…
Like the developers NFT that was sold by the team…
Was a neglected project because nobody was expecting to receive any voting power when it was launched would now give those NFTs some monetary value because of the demand for power…