I would have voted abstain on this proposal had it been an option. I don’t feel strongly about enabling this and think there are a lot of good points raised in this forum about potential details to think through more.
Leaning towards against for a few of reasons:
- I’m uncomfortable with the capacity for voters to inflate their voting power through DeFi mechanisms
- I think that if we do allow something like this, it shouldn’t be Aave specific
- It seems like something like this would rely on foundation approval, which Missions shouldn’t rely on
- As @Griff noted, this isn’t really a feature, it’s a policy change. It should go through a different process than a Mission proposal
- The implementation of this proposal would tie the security of our governance to the parameters of a protocol that we don’t have control over (at least explicitly), which is bad practice
Hi Fig. First of all, we enjoyed your proposal. It makes sense not to be limited to just one major token for voting power in governance votes. Optimism’s token value may suffer as a result in the early stages. After all, we believe that this idea will greatly boost governance accessibility in the future. We hope that the recommendations in this proposal will create an example for other ecosystem governances. We think that the wider the spread of voting power provided, the more fair and decentralized governance will be. Our decision as the ITU Blockchain delegation team is to vote on this proposal. Thank you and best wishes
1 Like