Yes i agree ambivalent nature of the proposal. But i have not come up with a better solution for the problem about voting. To do a good job as a voter you need to dedicate a lot of time to research proposals, preferably like a full time job. If we want to decentralize the voting process, so everyone with the will and skill can become a voter, and dedicate their life to it. We need to monetize that role so people can free up enough time and dedication to do a good job.
What do you think about that?
2 Likes
I don’t like the idea, I want everyone to get involved and contribute without direct financial benefit, now the whole ecosystem is incentivized, and I would like to see more people who will get involved and contribute without rewards, at least in governance.
Regarding voting and governance, we have delegates doing the hardest part of the governance process, analysing and working on proposals, now we will have committees, so every voting participant will be able to see a constructive analysis from the committees, and it’s just a matter of voting.
Also each voter votes on which projects will receive grants that will then be allocated to users, i.e. each voter will be able to get rewards by getting involved in the projects they voted for, and the projects that will distribute rewards.
At the moment the circle is complete, impact=profit.
2 Likes
“right way”? Now voting participants don’t vote correctly because they don’t get rewards?
Voters can receive rewards if they get involved and contribute to the projects they voted for.
2 Likes
But what will delegates do?
Thank you for taking part in the discussion.
I agree with you on all this. I just think that it would be better if growth of Optimism have an even more direct feedback loop to the voter.
The risk i see with committees is that you centralize the decisions more, but i also see a great value of getting insight and perspective from the great minds of the game.
They can vote the right way. The point is to incentivize a person so they can work full time as a voter. If a person can dedicate their life to the process, the process will improve. For sure people can do it now, i would just like a more direct and clear path to the correct vote.
I agree again. My point is just to create a more direct and a way to measure success a voter within the system itself.
1 Like
Delegates vote
Proposal promoters role is more like the suggested committees role, just a lite bit more decentralized.
In our forum only citizens should be allowed to post. The most active citizens of Optimism with the most liked and engaged posts should be offered a term as a proposal promoter.
There role is to make sure that all OP issued should be spent. This is to incentivize them to lift and promote the best ideas to get funding.
So the voters/delegates is like yin and the promoter is like yang, every were a balance is needed. Thats why we keep on seeing yin and yang repeatedly in nature.
1 Like
You are proposing the creation of a new entity that will receive a “lifetime” salary from the OP for the work that delegates do now.
What is not clear and correct in the current governance process?
What makes it more decentralised?
30 accounts can be created that will appreciate each other, so they will occupy all positions, and governance will be compromised.
Delegates will just vote… then why people will delegate tokens, now people delegate tokens to delegates because delegates have experience, knowledge, do an expertise, analyze proposals, improve proposals. If the delegates are just going to vote, and they don’t get involved in the process, and they don’t do everything they do now, there is no sense in delegating.
Yin & Yang is balance in a person, balance in delegates’ work, analysis-improve/vote.
1 Like
No, you first need to stake OP and then vote. If you don’t have a stake in the network and don’t vote you will not get a reward.
The direct effects of the network growth now and in the coming year. And again I’m not saying its “not” clear i say “more” clear path.
The more things you can automate the better it is. This is an automated process that promotes a citizen to the role, based on the criteria mentioned. If you do not perform in the measured areas the person will be ineligible for next period.
If we do not figure out a way if identifying our citizens no democratic process is possible. I would suggest some kind of KYC.
To me voting means to have experience, knowledge, do an expertise, analyze proposals, improve proposals. Otherwise you are just a wasted vote.
1 Like
Where to stake?
In a year’s time the eosystem will be much bigger and more balanced, governance is not yet complete, Citizens House will be formed, and retroPGF will be launched.
You mean:
This is not an automatic process, nor is it decentralised.
Yes, but you said that the promoters will do all this and the delegates will just vote.)
Finally, you have taken some familiar OP governance terms, changed them around, offered new roles, and proposed this as a new governance structure. And the ‘promoter’ role completely devalues the delegates.
Regarding the financial benefits, with such a % it will be more advantageous to vote than to engage and contribute to the ecosystem.
You can’t offer such a %, it will lead to a mathematical, financial, and social error.
Why? The promoter is less important to the system and the voters/delegates gets more of the OP issuance. If i give you an example, the committee is now paid 20 k usd equivalent in OP for 3 months of work there is supposed to be 4 committee’s. So if we just use the OP that is suggested to be used on committees, we can pay 1,3 k per month to 20 promoters with same cost as now planed.
I don’t understand why delegates are undermined they are in a way the bosses of the promoters. If the voters/delegates don’t like the ideas of the promoters they get a pay cut. If a promoter performs bad enough they get blocked from next month promoter position.
This is just a hypothetical %. Much more calculations needs to be performed to get more exact numbers.
What suggestions would you have about improving the proposal?
1 Like
That needs to be built. But check out https://app.velodrome.finance/
They have a good example of how its done.
Amazing, looking so much forward to everyday of this experiment.
Not now but i can be programmed to be.
Just vote? According to me voting is a much overlooked process and a big reason why the world looks like it does today. I want to improve the value of the voters/delegates with these ideas.
You just want to hire 20 people where there is no need.
“bosses”))) Governance that is based on equality has more positive effects, any hierarchy has a negative effect in the end.
You want to create another project for this governance structure, maybe you create a project and implement this governance structure.
What qualifications and knowledge must this promoter have to agree to work full time for 1.3k
Again you have to build something to give salary to 20 people, a complication that is unnecessary and has no advantages.
I don’t support this proposal, it just complicates the governance process, and has no benefit to the ecosystem, the main purpose of this proposal is to hire 20 people (promoters) the need is not there, and that devalues delegates. And another purpose is excessive rewards for governance participants, it will be time for delegates and other voting participants to be rewarded, probably after the retroPGF launch.
This governance structure for Token House is not necessary, and certainly no secretaries and bosses are needed.
2 Likes
I have created a mathematical model for a bank lending/borrowing system, and I have created a mathematical index model for a fund, and I can tell you that such a mathematical reward model is not effective. Example: an investor participates in governance with 50-100M, the rewards provided to the voting participants will exceed the value of the grants allocated to the ecosystem, what effect will this governance have on the ecosystem?
And there are several entities that in the future will participate in governance: investors, projects, DEVs, institutional investors, I don’t know now these entities will delegate tokens to current delegates, or will participate directly in voting but for sure in the future there will be more entities in governance.
So you are against this then? Introducing Governance Committees - #37 by Seyed
I would argue that this is a positive effect. Everything in life is just a trade of services and its very good to get the right feedback on your services, so you can improve them.
Ya maybe that turns out to be the best idea. Im just sharing my thoughts about something i think is suitable for this project.
I don’t think this is a full time job. A small part time job. We are writing now in the forum just because we like it.
Read this proposal Introducing Governance Committees - #37 by Seyed
In there they describe this exakt payment amount for the new committees, 4 groups with 5 members each 20k for each group for 3 month work. No one is complaining about this pay being too little.
How much do you think they should get paid?
[quote=“diligit, post:20, topic:2977”]
I don’t support this proposal, it just complicates the governance process, and has no benefit to the ecosystem, the main purpose of this proposal is to hire 20 people (promoters) the need is not there, and that devalues delegates. And another purpose is excessive rewards for governance participants, it will be time for delegates and other voting participants to be rewarded, probably after the retroPGF launch.
This governance structure for Token House is not necessary, and certainly no secretaries and bosses are needed.
[/quote] and Why does it devalue delegates? It’s about giving delegates higher value. I would say that this system values Builders highest and delegates right after. Delegates would be able to monetize their work by charging the delegators a fee for there’s work.
Im even suggesting a top list of delegates so delegators will be able to choose more easy.
1 Like
Who is Seyed?
But you said:
Exactly, that’s the value of delegates, they do the hard work of analysing and improving proposals, and if there will be “promoters”, the value of delegates is lost.
I don’t have any proposals regarding rewards, and I don’t want to assess the financial value of the delegates’ work. 20k and rewards at the end of the season is set now, it is possible that this amount will be reassessed after season 2, also delegates can make a proposal in this regard.
I like new ideas, but I also like the idea of contributing without set rewards, so any reward is a surprise.
2 Likes
Thats a voter/delegate should be able to work with this full time. A proposal promoter not.
The Delegates and committees are not necessary the same thing. Delegate vote for people that do not have time or care to vote themselves.
Committee’s are four groups with five members in each group. These groups are voted in by delegates and single voters to do research and state benefits and drawbacks with a proposal.
Contributing without set rewards means uncertainty. I would argue for the good of certainty.
1 Like