- We should start a new vote with the clear language about how much the total Shimmer supply will increase.
- Proposal need a way to be locked before the voting starts.
- The new vote should be for a 20% increase.10%, 10%, 80% feels nice, but we were expecting a 20% total increase.
1 Like
For those still confused about the math:
-Start with 100 Shimmer {100 Total Supply}
–Increase supply by 20% {120 Total Supply}
—20 Shimmer for ecosystem 100 Shimmer for stakers, Ecosystem percentage is 20/120 = 16.67%
–Increase supply by 25% {125 Total Supply}
—25 Shimmer for ecosystem 100 Shimmer for stakers, Ecosystem percentage is 25/120 = 20.08%
1 Like
basic math 100+20% = 120. 10 for treasure and 10 for Foundation. clear math
I also think, just to keep it fair, this third option definitely needs to be included in the poll here!
So couldn’t help to make an account here, for as long as it lasts. Since I am pretty sure I was (one of) the first to notice the math was incorrect here. And I shouldn’t have been (one of) the first, since it isn’t that complicated. So that would be my main point: Stop rushing it…
If you don’t have time to do it properly, don’t do it. If you do have time to do it properly, then do it properly. In the end personally I don’t think it matters really if it is 20% or 25%. But there should be no confusion.
So the initial vote is confusing. I don’t think anyone can honestly disagree with that. Technically it says 25% increase, but with the rest of the history, a significant part thinks it means a 20% increase.
The new proposal here is almost as confusing. Yeah technically it is correct in it. But considering you guys yourself did in the initial proposal the math incorrect, can you really expect the average person not to be confused if you write it like that?
Just make the proposal something like: Do you want to increase the Shimmer supply by 20%/25%, where half of the extra tokens goes to X, and half goes to Y. I am not gonna get involved if it should be 20% or 25% (the original one was 20% of course), but if you write it like that it is clear for everyone.
4 Likes
I think the 81% who voted for an increase don’t care if it’s 20% or 25%. At least that’s how I feel. If this increase helps strengthen the ecosystem then go for it. No projects will move to Shimmer if there is no incentive.
And everyone who is upset that the tokens will be worth less should not forget that they got them as a gift and should be happy about that.
Übersetzt mit DeepL (DeepL Translate App for Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android
3 Likes
Dear IOTA community,
As we are charting into a new world of community-governance, it is obvious that we will make mistakes along the way. With this proposal, a few mistakes were made, namely being exact in the phrasing of the proposal leaving no room for interpretations, and how to deal with such inaccuracies in retrospect. I hope that with this post we can clarify this situation and move forward from this event - hopefully smarter and better for all the future governance proposals.
While @Phylo had initially proposed to stop the current vote in this forum post, it is technically not possible to stop a running vote. The only option the IOTA Foundation would have, is to ignore the outcome of the vote, which would be against our ethos and everything we are working for. Close to 6.2% of the total IOTA supply has already been pledged to this vote with participation constantly increasing.
Therefore, the current vote in Firefly will continue as planned. This proposal will allocate a total of 20% of the new token supply to the Ecosystem Fund, effectively increasing the old Shimmer supply by 25%.
The issue some community members take is the difference of “increasing the current total supply by 20% percent”, vs. “allocating 20% of the later total supply”, which is a difference of 5% dilution of the current supply.
This difference sparked an understandable discussion amongst some community members. The IOTA Foundation acknowledges that the wording of the initial and follow-up proposal was ambiguous. At the same time, as said before, technically the vote can not be stopped and also should not be stopped by the IF.
So, here’s what we can do:
1. Anyone can Initiate a follow-up proposal to invalidate the currently running vote. Even as part of the new governance framework (which should be finalized in the coming weeks), it is foreseen that an already initiated vote can still be invalidated through a new proposal. In order for that proposal to be accepted it needs to collect a larger amount of votes in Firefly than the previous proposal. The community has not agreed on the governance framework yet, but that does not stop anyone to simply make another proposal.
2. Anyone can initiate a proposal to burn part of the Shimmer token supply. If you had interpreted the Shimmer Supply increase proposal differently, and think that a 16.66% allocation for the Ecosystem Fund is more adequate, you can initiate a community proposal to burn part of the newly minted Shimmer tokens.
3. Those who are against the current vote, can simply vote “No” in Firefly to let their voices be heard and vote against the current proposal.
Lastly, I want to highlight the fact that the community now has the opportunity to really participate in the governance of Shimmer, which is absolutely fantastic. This process does however come with certain responsibilities, which includes partaking in the discussions on the Governance Forum, the regular governance calls, and generally following the established process. As a call to action, I invite everyone to be a part of our community on Discord and help to lead the decentralized governance of IOTA. The team is currently finalizing a new governance framework which clearly defines the entire process for the future.
27 Likes
So, the best (and imo only) Way would be to initiate a new follow up proposal with 3 Options:
In short:
- 20% Increase of the current SMR-supply (~8,3/8,3/83,3 as initially intended),
- 25% Increase of the current SMR-supply (new: 80/10/10)
- No increase.
Thats the only way of being a true DAO.
11 Likes
Am I understing this right, this proposal will be ignored?
2 Likes
Hello Dom so heres my feedback . I think the 3 options proposed are a good way to stop and correct in the true spirit of a DAO. If there was any misunderstanding by any of the voters then the result is not really valid and can be void or confirmed by those who really care on a second run at it. Also i woild like to bring to your attention a language technology that may be good to use when voting on important decisions. Unlike regular english where words can have many meanings depending how they are strung together. This technology uses 1 word one meaning. In fact it means exactly the same thing read forwards as it does backwards using propersitional phrases and syntax. There is no room for mistakes as it is a language of closure used in specialised contracts among those that know of it. It is also known as quantum grammar but the correct title is correct sentence structure communication parse syntax grammar. A correct propositional statement of intention and performance can put up instead of a question and then voters can agree with consent for or against. Jason Mathew Glass on YouTube is the only quantum grammar tutor i know of if anyone is interested in the technology with the mathematical interface keys for correcting language.
1 Like
Would Phylo’s current proposal to halt the vote count as a Phase II proposal as you point out in #1?
So it could then go to a FF vote correct?
This post is missing a /s
Way to go
The fine details not worry me. For me all that matter with small community is with funding project’s will not stall and will help with the success
alright,
the vote for more shimmer failed super hard, because no one did listen in math class.
now the IF pretends its a bad wording.
so bad wording is like=> 1+2=5 (maybe my math professor needs to give me a better grade)
“This difference sparked an understandable discussion amongst some community members. The IOTA Foundation acknowledges that the wording of the initial and follow-up proposal was ambiguous.”
This is so embarrassing on every level i know ( give me a model and IF embarrassing-level raises the level)
can we just cancel it and let someone rewrite the vote. ( like my niece, she will be second grade soon^tm lol funny xD moon,)
this just another fail to the iota history
We could try to solve this the way we intend it for the future governance framework.
That being, we make another proposal with interpretation 2. This would go into Firefly as well (given we reach a quorum here).
Then we attach a second question:
If interpretation 2 passes, should we use
a) Interpretation 1
b) Interpretation 2
This way everybody can freely express his opinion. After all you could be against the increase (and therefore vote against both proposals), but if it passes, you prefer the version as intended by Kappy. Essentially two hurdles, find a quorum for your proposal AND beat the other option if it passes
dont get me wrong.
i dont care if its 20% or 25%.
but you simply cant do a vote like this … i am crying tears
actually i think it has to be canceled. no way around it.
not everyone watches the place 24/7. it is holiday time as well.
stop everything, do the math like its teached at school and start a new vote
Also based on previous posts I have seen shared, but how can you put the blame on the community for this? The proposal was changed on the last minute. You decided to put a last minute change up to vote in Firefly, and not the original proposal which was here. How could the community have predicted two months ago the perfectly valid proposal would be changed after they voted here? In no way could anyone from the bigger community have predicted this, so put the blame where it belongs.
In the governance proposal topic the idea is that a proposal is done, an initial voting round is done here, and if it is accepted it will be put up to actual vote on eg Firefly. The current proposal on Firefly has simply never had its voting round done here. Of course you can continue with it, and hey I actually agree it doesn’t matter that much if it ends up at 20% or 25%. However you are setting a precedent if you allow your first real governance vote to be not only just unclear and confusing, but also changed at the last minute. You can make a proposal here, people agree with it, and then you change the proposal last minute. Do I really need to argue that is not a wanted situation?
Also the original proposal was straight forward and correct. Only after the last minute changes it got ambiguous.
4 Likes
Just looking at this pie chart, the ecosys allocation looks a LITTLE bit thin, dont you think fam ? lol.
1 Like