Lol… ya, it really amazed me that once we started discussing about and developing a framework it became apparent that we all were going down the rabbit hole. It is one thing to build this type of process for a small company, but for a global community around the world there was so much to think about and little nuances that needed to be consider to ensure everyone has the best access and ability to be heard. All while trying to have some method of spam protection and mitigations to limit gaming. It will be good to see how to’s and create TLDr’s.
1 Like
Thanks for the detailed replies Phylo and Deep_Sea. I think the current sub-polls being implemented in this thread solve for much of the “binary” options concerns raised, and a minimum of 2 weeks in Phase 1 does a good job in achieving the same idea I was hoping to raise with the 7 day minimum for Phase 2 as well. Some sort of ranked choice voting process (like these sub-polls) being ingrained into the early phases of future proposals will be a good way to keep discussion lively and focused
The guidelines and moderation rules the committee has laid out so far are a great starting point to this process and will naturally evolve over time as we find out what works and doesn’t as a community.
Thanks for all the hard work of everyone involved in this Governance Framework!
2 Likes
Thanks… another thing as well that I think gives another option against the Binary choice only in Phase 2 is a “poll runoff”. I forgot to mention this.
So let’s say a proposal is in Phase 1 and the community likes the proposal, but wants a different option. Anyone can submit a “counter-proposal”. They just need to write in the Phase 1 title: “Counter-Proposal for Proposal XXXX”. If that counter proposal gets 50 votes or 50 likes (hearts), this would trigger a poll runoff.
A poll runoff would be then pushed in Phase 2, where “both” options are in a poll. Which ever option get’s chosen by the community it would go to Firefly then. Hopefully this supports the option of non-Binary “if” the community chooses that.
4 Likes
Hi Phylo,
Thanks for your reply.
I cannot emphasize enough how grateful I am for your work on the governance framework.
If you hadn’t done it, then probably no one would.
But I would now like to go into your arguments for the simple majority decision again.
1.) It is the standard in the crypto space and is widely used.
Counter-argument:
Even if a simple majority decision is also used in other communities, it is not an indication that it is the right strategy.
We as the IOTA ecosystem do not go the way of the blockchain either, but consider another way to be the right one, even if blockchains are the norm.
In my main contribution under this framework I went into the negative and undemocratic aspects.
2.) In the last 12 months you have discussed it extensively in the Governance Forum and decided in favor of the simple majority decision.
Counter-argument:
I’m also sure that you discussed the different options.
However, you asked us to provide input on your framework for the last time, and I did.
First and foremost, it doesn’t matter whether hundreds of participants have already discussed it, since this affects the entire community and this decision has long-term and possibly serious consequences for our ecosystem.
3.) Your assumption is that with a minimum requirement of 70% of the yes votes, it is difficult to find majorities and it slows down the process & that the “richer” part of the community with their token proposals can more easily prevent them.
Counter-argument:
Especially when introducing community-oriented decision-making, it is not important to find decisions quickly, but to find well thought-out solutions that the large majority of the community supports.
I don’t want to play “rich” against “poor” here either.
It’s about finding a clear majority consensus in the community, everyone from small investors to whales belongs to it.
Tight election results with a simple majority decision are always an indication that the solution is not the right one and that there is still a need for discussion.
With token-based simple majority decisions, however, they are always the result that the richer minority makes the decision for the large majority, and that is a fatal signal for an open ecosystem based on democratic values.
And that is what you are proposing and arguing for.
With a simple majority vote, the wealthier minority can ALWAYS easily win the election and steer the ecosystem in their favor.
With my proposal, they only have the option of temporarily maintaining the status quo.
However, they have no way of actively steering the ecosystem.
And that’s always the better compromise.
As a community, I would rather have the opportunity to continue discussing and find a common solution than having a solution given to me.
As an example, I would like to mention the Shimmer Supply Proposal, which did not find an absolute majority in the community, which was flawed and was promoted and pushed through by a few well-known faces from the community.
I don’t want to say it was the wrong decision.
While it shouldn’t be here, I also voted yes as I feel this is what the community needs.
However, the decision-making process was abysmal and only confirmed the problems that I want to point out with my arguments here.
We can be glad that there was no FUD wave.
The fact that this choice was one of the first in our community and is now part of IOTA history is also very questionable.
Nevertheless, I also understand your perspective and would also like to add an idea to our considerations here.
There would also be the possibility in phase 2 of the decision-making to place the proposal in one of three categories, depending on how important the proposal is for the network or the ecosystem.
-
Critical or system relevant: +70% of the yes votes are required.
-
Medium: +60% of the votes are needed.
-
Weak: +50% of votes are needed.
To do this, you could open a simple election in phase 2 in which the community decides which category the proposal belongs to.
Nonetheless, I stand by it and the arguments in favor of it are that token-based simple majority voting is detrimental to an open value-based ecosystem in both the short- and long-term and leads to centralized decision-making.
4 Likes
Really love the thought process and feedback. What would be great is to test the counter-proposal process.
If you felt up to it, please create a Phase I with a poll…
A. Governance Framework with 50% +1 majority
B. Governance Framework with levels of majority (weak 50%, medium 60%, and critical 70%).
Then we can see how the community feels regarding this topic within the framework.
Personally, I think breaking the required majority into different tiers is very interesting and something to analyze and discuss. Even if the community doesn’t vote for it specifically and votes for the framework as-is, we should assess the first initial votes and how they play out.
7 Likes
Hi guys,
A very thorough framework! Well done to all involved!
My key comments:
- Participation: We normally struggle with participation. Have you thought about incentives for taking interest in the community governance. I know the initial thoughts - bribery, etc. They don’t need to be financial incentives but can be social status incentives or gamification.
- Section 4.1: If the idea doesn’t meet guidelines, I’d suggest it should be sent back to the Proposer and if they do not respond within x days, it gets archived. This will ensure language barriers don’t come into play and a feedback loop is also established or you’ll have angry community members accusing you of taking proposals down as it didn’t blah blah blah. Also, change the spellings of Requirements!
- Phase 1 & 2: I know this framework has been created with long term in mind. My question is - at the current stage of the Shimmer Governance what value is added by having an additional phase? Red tape / bureaucracy vs. getting it right. You’ve got to remember we need to encourage more participation and not just same guys from IF or working full time with IF who create the polls, vote on them and implement them. My comment pertains to the launch stage of the governance framework following ‘Lean Startup’ approach. Don’t think the complexity is required until we have more numbers at this stage. It is lots of work to create a poll and creating 3 could be an ultimate nightmare!!! I notice in one of your response you mentioned Level 1 community members will be the only ones creating Phase 1 and Phase 2, my comment in that case can be ignored…
- Cool down period: I feel the time for counter proposals of 7 days might not be sufficient going by the last Shimmer poll which still resulted in a completely divided community. Atleast 14 days from the day the information has been publicly distributed. As an ‘in and out’ participant, I normally vote and forget about it until I read on the outcome on the socials. I suspect majority of us lie in this category.
- Prep time between Phases: I would say, it is fair to stipulate some sort of timelines between different phases. For e.g., a proposal that passes Phase 2 may not be relevant in 6 months time. Perhaps limit it to the same season for a proposal to go through all 3 phases?
- Section 4.12: There should be a section for either Moderator or the Proposer to provide ‘Potential Other Impacts’ where potential downsides / negative effects have to be listed. It is a common marketing ploy to just sugar coat everything and blinden the community than to provide a balanced proposal. It’ll ensure Proposer has reviewed the robustness of the proposal, will act as additional help to voters who do not have understanding of the 2nd or 3rd order effects or time / resources to investigate and will also allow richer discussions on the topic.
- Simple Majority: I really love the passion DLTimes has shown against ‘Simple Majority’ based outcomes and I agree with him as well. In typical Corporate Governance, there are different thresholds set for putting a proposal across the line depending on the type or proposal. It is legal requirement (Company’s Act in the UK) to have the following percentage votes depending on the proposals:
Over 50%: appointing or removing directors, allowing the company to buy back its own shares (other than out of capital, where a special resolution is required), authorising the directors to allot shares (unless there is only one class of share, in which case the resolution will not be needed), and approving loans to or substantial property transactions with directors.
Over 75%: pass special resolutions and extraordinary resolutions, necessary to approve a proposal to, for example: amend the articles of association, change the company’s name, wind the company up, authorise the company to issue new shares without having to offer them to existing shareholders first (pre-emption rights), and allow the company to buy back its own shares out of capital.
Based on the above, technically issuance of additional Shimmer tokens
There are also rights to protect minor holders with 5%, 10% and 15% which may not be relevant in this instance as anyone is allowed to raise a counter proposal.
The majority and super majority should also be put in place to protect the community from bad actors. Whales clubbing together and out voting minor holding community, not all of who actually vote. The checks and balances in the framework you have seem ok but if it always worked smoothly then the corporate lawyers won’t have a job.
So, I’d recommend the Mods and Admins have a think about what category of decisions needs just a majority and what areas need super majority. Thinking like a Corporation will also help if the plans to register DAO are still going to take place.
10 Likes
Based on the above, technically issuance of additional Shimmer tokens would not have been allowed.
Sorry the above sentence got cut off while typing and unable to edit.
3 Likes
I’m fully agree whit this proposal.
1 Like