Current Voting Structure possibilities, along with information about them, pros, and cons:
- Standard Cosmos On-Chain governance mechanism: Possible options to vote for are: Yes, No, No with Veto, and Abstain)
-
When to use?
- When a vote is deemed as being necessary to be on-chain.
- When on approval of the proposal, the chain will be upgraded to support what was proposed.
- When a vote can be made with only options Yes/No.
-
How to use?
Making a Proposal
-
Info:
- This is based on amount staked/delegated and only valid for those staked/delegated.
- This is standard Cosmos functionality and can be implemented with little additional effort.
- We just need to provide clear instructions on how to formally submit a proposal, we need to implement the minimum amount of ROWAN necessary to submit a proposal, and we need to set the quorum that needs to be met with each vote.
-
Pros:
- Standard functionality.
- Clean and simple.
- Adoption may be easy?
-
Cons:
- Submitting a proposal isn’t always the easiest process, especially if you are an average user (non-developer).
- Only takes into consideration those who have staked/delegated, and exclude users who have provided liquidity.
- Limited response options.
- Manual send tx vote w/ memo field (e.g. Pools of the People)
- When to use?
- When a vote is deemed necessary to be put on chain.
- When there are multiple options for voting that expand beyond yes/no.
- The desire is for the vote to take into consideration liquidity providers and stakers/delegaters.
- When Sifcore has agreed that it is available to tally the results on the vote.
- How to use?
- When passing along information to Sifcore, the proposer must include:
- Possible voting options
- Duration of vote (this must be a minimum of 72 hours, and a maximum of 4 days).
- Sifcore will then post in the Discord Announcements channel the vote time window, and the possible options to vote for.
- Info:
- This voting mechanism is based on amount of ROWAN a user has, and the weight of the votes are distributed to incentivize both poolers and stakers:
- These votes are weighted by amount of ROWAN a user has.
- The votes are then normalized at the end to ensure a 50:50 balance of all votes is held between LP’s and Stakers
- Example: if we receive 12 votes in total, with 8 from LPers and 4 from delegators, all LPers’ votes will receive a weight of .75 (8*.75 = 6) and all delegators’ votes will receive a weight of 1.5 (4*1.5 = 6) in order to reach the prescribed voting ratio of 50:50 LPers:Delegators.
- Submission of a proposal is done very ad-hoc and is simply posted in various means (twitter, telegram, discord, the UI via a banner), with directions on how to vote.
- Pros:
- Can be implemented right now with no additional effort.
- Encourages both pooling and staking to take part in governance.
- Anyone can easily submit a vote.
- Can have customized detailed responses.
- Cons:
- Low voter turnout and adoption as it is all done manually.
- Submitting a proposal to be officially voted on needs to have a more formal process outlined to fall into this method.
- Prone to user error since manual input is necessary.
- Lack of clarity into the voting results until the vote is over.
- Built into the UI vote
- When to use?
- When a vote is deemed necessary to be put on chain.
- When there are multiple options for voting that expand beyond yes/no.
- The desire is for the vote to take into consideration liquidity providers and stakers/delegaters.
- When Sifcore has agreed that it is available to adjust the UI mechanism to support this vote.
- How to use?
- When passing along information to Sifcore, the proposer must include:
- Possible voting options
- Duration of vote (this must be a minimum of 72 hours, and a maximum of 4 days).
- Sifcore will then post in the Discord Announcements channel the vote time window, and the possible options to vote for.
- Info:
- This voting mechanism is based on amount of ROWAN a user has, and the weight of the votes are distributed to incentivize both poolers and stakers:
- These votes are weighted by amount of ROWAN a user has.
- The votes are then normalized at the end to ensure a 50:50 balance of all votes is held between LP’s and Stakers
- Example: if we receive 12 votes in total, with 8 from LPers and 4 from delegators, all LPers’ votes will receive a weight of .75 (8*.75 = 6) and all delegators’ votes will receive a weight of 1.5 (4*1.5 = 6) in order to reach the prescribed voting ratio of 50:50 LPers:Delegators.
- Submission of a proposal is done very ad-hoc and is simply posted in various means (twitter, telegram, discord, the UI via a banner), with directions on how to vote.
- Pros:
- Can be implemented right now with no additional effort.
- Encourages both pooling and staking to take part in governance.
- Anyone can easily submit a vote.
- Higher voter turnout as the vote is done directly in the DEX.
- Can have customized detailed responses.
- Cons:
- Submitting a proposal to be officially voted on needs to have a more formal process outlined to fall into this method.
- Lack of clarity into the voting results until the vote is over.
- Takes a level of customization and engineering time to build each vote into the UI.
- Discord emoji vote
- When to use?
- When it is deemed not necessary to put on chain.
- When the desire is to gauge community sentiment.
- When the vote has no impact on granting/removing authority, or any impact on budgets.
- How to use?
- The vote is raised in the Voting>DAO Proposals discord area.
- The vote is posted with appropriate details (the 1-pager, the voting options, the time period).
- The time period can be between 72 hours - 4 days.
- Info:
- This proposal and voting mechanism is done all within Discord. It is the easiest and quickest way to run a vote on something. Official things to vote on come from a member of the SifCore team through the dao-proposals channel. It is then announced in discord, twitter, and telegram bringing attention to the ongoing vote. Users then use emojis to vote for the various options.
- Pros:
- Very easy to implement right now.
- A good measure to get community sentiment on things quickly.
- Can have multiple very detailed responses.
- Cons:
- Very informal.
- Is not on chain and can get easily lost in the history of discord.
- Voter turnout is very low due to forcing people to join and be active in Discord to vote.
- Can easily be manipulated.
- Submitting a proposal to be officially voted on needs to have a more formal process outline to fall into this method.
- It does not take into consideration any ‘skin in the game’ when tallying results.
- Commonwealth
- When to use?
- When utilizing a discussion period window for a proposal.
- No vote is actually needed, only discussion.
- How to use?
- Info:
- Commonwealth is a common forum where users can post ideas, proposals, and discussion topics.
- It is recommended as a tool to be used when opening up a new proposal in certain cases for a discussion area as well.
- Commonwealth automatically pulls in proposals made via the standard Cosmos on-chain governance.
- You can also incorporate ‘snapshot’ into Commonwealth as a place to submit proposals and hold official voting (I am unclear how this works).
- Pros:
- Using it as an information sharing/discussion platform is great and commonly used across various blockchain protocols.
- Cons:
- Unsure of effort to incorporate snapshot.
- Limited to stakers/delegators
- DAO Council vote (informal 3/5)
- When to use?
- When there is already a specific DAO council setup to handle such authority and proposals.
- Proposals that go to DAO councils are specified below, and are highlighted in the DAO responsibilities as time of creation of the DAO. If a type of proposal is to be added/removed from the DAO council’s responsibility, that would go to a vote to the broader community.
- How to use?
Open question on all processes below: How do tools as determined in initiative 1 fit into the proposal process?