I don’t know if these issues can be addressed with Discourse, but in lieu of that, I do know of one project that may function as a more-than-suitable addition (following an extensive review, of course):
If you think about it, it would seem to be nearly perfect for our needs. It provides a familiar forum-like interface for posters to work with, and it also rolls in the needs identified in the SourceCred discussion without us having to scotch-tape two pieces of software together like we would with SourceCred. Sure there are questions, like how the service itself is hosted (I really wanna know that; can I host a node myself?), but overall the project seems very promising, and it would clearly be in our interest to explore it.
Let’s discuss this, I’d like to hear other people’s thoughts on it.
There is nothing stopping you from trying to create revenue streams from your governance contributions, but I don’t think this is something Bancor necessarily should create for you. Starting a new bulletin board on BBS is akin to creating a YouTube channel, or your own Bancor Governance website, and monetizing your activity via the advertising revenue it generates. Not a bad idea! But again, should not be the default platform.
Marrying governance with the monetization of content can create a conflict of interest between doing what is right for the project, and what gets the most clicks. I am not against community members attempting to earn money this way. However, we will always need an impartial, ad-free discussion board where ideas and discussion are judged for their own merits, rather than the amount of traffic they generate for advertisers.
EDIT: The original notion of this post was to suggest BBS as a replacement for Discourse; it turns out that Discourse provides some organizational infrastructure that would be lost, and that would be bad. I still think that BBS would be a valuable addition, and maybe it would be an alternative to SourceCred that still fills the same niche.
There are a lot of good arguments for the fact the Discourse is an imperfect solution for the needs of a governance message board. It is important to remember that while Discourse is our default record, governance itself is really handled via a combination of Twitter, Telegram, community calls, and Discord. Posts on Discourse simply formalise and organize the feedback from these other channels.
Case in point: This post . That one has been slowly refining away in my brain for weeks , but I couldn’t store it anywhere on the forum because the software forces me to finish one post before I can store another. I am certain that the quality of that post was significantly reduced because of that. Infinitely infuriating. I could have stored it offline, sure, but then if I want to work on it from multiple devices it introduces a whole hell of a lot of overhead, and I shouldn’t have to do it to begin with .
I don’t understand why storing it on the forum is important, or why a lack of support to storing it in Discourse affected its final quality. A reasonable solution is to draft these posts somewhere else first, then put them on Discourse when you feel they are ready. If you use Google docs, for example, there is no overhead to working from multiple devices that I am aware of. There are multiple options to working entirely out of the cloud, many of which are included with other services you likely already own.
The community feedback within this thread captures my journey through the SourceCred idea almost perfectly. From the outset it sounds like a really terrific idea - reward community members who are openly active in the governance forums with financial incentives for their work.
Then, looking further into it, these incentives really just attract impassioned and well-meaning spam. In general, and this is true of all projects, brainstorming ideas is pretty easy. These message boards are brimming with stuff that could be worth exploring in future iterations of Bancor. The bottleneck lies after the crowd-sourcing of ideas: finding people with the skills and resources to translate these ideas into reality. Thankfully, Bancor already has a grant system to address this bottleneck, and so it remains to be shown if there is in fact a problem that SourceCred claims to alleviate.
In short, I think the community already does a terrific job of using Discourse to flesh out its concerns and voice new ideas, and something like SourceCred may just be adding additional overhead without making a significant impact on the ecosystem. This seems to be the conclusion at Maker.
There are many ways to view and represent the same thing. Let’s have an example:
The Ethereum Network, a smart contract platform. At a cost of Ether, the network’s native token, you can deploy smart contracts, which are programs that define business logic and handle value in the form of tokens via transactions, and which can be interacted with by users of the network, or even by other contracts.
Versus: The Ethereum, an arcane aura that exists all around us. Using Ether, which is the substance underlying the fabric of the Ethereum, you can cast enchantments that manipulate the Ethereum to produce specific effects, and which can be used by casters and non-casters alike, or even other enchantments.
It is important to remember that our industry is still one that belongs to the greater collection of financial services and products, and is intended to interface with banks and funds. The vocabulary used to describe what happens is not arbitrary, and we should remind ourselves that words have meaning for a reason. The efficiency of communication is almost completely destroyed by adopting a non-standard vernacular.
Rewarding voters via reward “streams”; basically, a vote is placed, and the voter receives a month-duration stream rewarding them for their participation. This encourages consistent participation, as more votes = more streams = more income, but if the voter abstains for too long all of their streams will run out, tapering off their income until it eventually ceases.
I want to point out that such rewards streams are inherently insecure, as the participation reward is independent of the consequences. Under such a system users are incentivised to create as many proposals as possible and vote on as much stuff as they can, even if it is completely irrelevant. For example, imagine that I want to maintain my revenue stream for as long as possible. Every week, I might post a new proposal to change the swap fee on the ETH pool by a small amount, and then change it back with the next proposal. It is very easy to disguise ultimately meaningless proposals as well-intentioned, or even important, and will congest the governance process.
Almost all governance incentives, both for proposal creation and voter participation, end in superfluous activity. We see this in the real world, too. If you have ever wondered why middle management is bloated, or why so much red tape exists between any two points, it’s because someone is trying to justify their salary by introducing policy even where there is no need for it.
Conviction voting, and voter decay. The former is a mechanism by which the voter expresses their preference, and the longer they keep that preference the more weight it holds; changing your preference takes the weight out and you start from 1x again. The latter is a mechanism by which the voter is encouraged to vote consistently, else the weight of their vote is reduced (until after they vote again); our interest in this concept was to use it in our quorum, such that “decayed” voters would count less towards quorum requirements.
This is likely to be a highly fruitful area for continued discussion, and will likely result in an actionable proposal. I am very interested to grow the discussion on voting weight mechanics, and their effect on quorum and supermajority. The ideas expressed here are pretty sound, and I fully expect some version of these proposed changes to become part of our DAO process in the near future.
In the interest of progressing these ideas closer to fruition, I think we need to start building a spec document and simulating it.
Augmenting rewards with NFTs that amplify earnings (it’s towards the bottom of the OP). The idea is that (in the case of the linked proposal) voters, no matter which way they vote so long as they do so, are rewarded with an NFT that, when staked, amplifies LP rewards on Bancor.
Similar to the points I raised above, I think it is essential that the governance process is completely disconnected from the finances of staking BNT or any token on the network. Receiving an NFT that bolsters rewards is the same as just paying rewards to users for voting and/or creating proposals.
@ccc may I ask you to put together some numbers for this? Am I correct in assuming that the flow model you are proposing is seeking to essentially tax the APY of non-voters and distribute their earnings to voters?
Don’t mean to interrupt the discussion but just wanted to add that discourse does have a dark mode feature, for both desktop and mobile version. Under Preferences → interface → Dark mode.
Also, there is a drafts section that lets you keep one reply draft and one topic draft.
Final tip: If you’re on Brave on Android, you can open gov.bancor.network, click on the “…”, then “Install App” and you’ll get an app version of the Bancor discourse (really just a browser but neater).
I am absolutely floored. Thank you! It may not be in order, but I’ll try to respond succinctly–I’m aware I am sometimes long-winded, apologies! Although, if I’m being truthful, I’m a little concerned I’ve annoyed you.
You are correct. I have spent some time distancing myself from mainstream services, and especially The Cloud; having put so much effort into purging them from my life, I often forget that they even exist. My journey through computing has been i̴̞̜̰͉̩̒̏̎̓͘̚͜n̷̥̘͇̯̘͚̊̅̒̍t̸̟͙͕̀͘ẽ̴͇̕r̶̗͗̒ḛ̴͈̣͖̉̎̽s̶̫̦̣̓̐͒ţ̶͇͉͊́̽̌͌͝͠͝ḭ̸̠̆̄̍̕̚͠ņ̸̩̖̟̫̰̲̃͆ͅģ̵̡̨͉̹̆̃͋. I will explore this avenue of research and find a suitable solution. There are certain things that I simply cannot do, however.
As for why it reduced the quality, I kept it in my head; so in truth I suppose it’s quite unfair to say that Discourse caused the problem, rather it was my spaced out brain. I apologize, and will happily remove the statement if deemed necessary.
Again, you are right, and it was my always intention to build this thing myself, or at least help in some way–I am not one to just sit idly by and suggest things, I want to get involved in a meaningful way and build something! (Assuming there’s interest; I don’t want to waste my time). But in order for me to do so in good conscience, I have to do so by the principles I have laid our for myself, which means I must do things a certain way; I imagine few people are willing to work with me because my way is strange, so I anything I wanted built or set up here, I had planned to do myself. I was mainly probing for interest, and to see if I’d get the blessing of the forum gods.
Indeed! One of my aims in governance is to preclude the possibility of ultimately meaningless votes by innovatively automating away all of the tedious crap that we have to do, and that could be (as mentioned elsewhere) used to play the system for extra income. A grant system is good, but ideally we’d want some way to automate judging and rewarding any volume of meaningful contributions, both to remove human prejudice and also to reduce overhead.
When I want to want to superscript/subscript things (I rarely use these, to be truthful, but I’m not aware of markdown supporting these–if I’m wrong, apologies!), or even do special formatting that typically isn’t distinguished like the difference between italics and emphatic text, or bold and strong. These things don’t typically look different, but in some cases they may be rendered differently from each other, and so even when I write my website code, I aim for code correctness and with future uses in mind. Those things are different, they represent different concepts, even if they appear the same on the surface. I should use HTML tags more often, given this–most of the time markdown serves well enough, and it seems I can blend the two without disruption, anyway. It’s one of those things that would be nice to have, is all.
Are we going to vote a project that proposes to do exactly that, then? Or are we treating it differently because they’re making the offer, not us? (I’m not trying to be in any way malicious, I’m genuinely curious; I’m fine with doing it that way if that’s how it is)
Of course! I will begin work immediately.
Not exactly what I had in mind, although I suppose it might work out that way. Essentially, (assuming we reward voters), we’re using an APY on two non-monetary values (calculated from voting weight)–one reflecting activity, the other, inactivity–and comparing the voter’s total balance accrued from both. Simultaneously, the difference between the two rates (which grow as proposals are placed and the voter takes action–or not) is used to calculated another APY that does have a monetary value, which is the rewards. The larger the difference (i.e., the more active the voter), the larger the reward APY, thereby rewarding active voters more. So goes the theory. I’ve yet to make a model, but as I said, I’ll begin work on one.
You are quite correct; one cannot expect everyone to act altruistically all the time. One solution is to automate away all the necessary-but-trivial stuff (like setting fees) until all that is ever left to vote on is the important stuff, and one could argue that we could adjust our governance cycle to fit the frequency of those issues–I maintain that we (and DeFi in general) should slow the hecc down, weekly votes are overkill. The governance system should, by design, eliminate bad actors, so by the time we reach the governance cycle the voting set is in good faith.
In an ideal world, we would hardly ever have to vote (because automation is the future), and cash flow would be plentiful enough that rewarding them for quite some time for taking the time to keep the protocol running smoothly wouldn’t really be an issue. We should aim for that, and we may get close, but of course things will never be ideal.
Of course. I’m suggesting that’s how we present ourselves to people who are outside of banks and funds. Part of the problem with CeFi is that it’s scary to people, because finance people–people like a lot of us–use a lot of big scary “standard” vernacular that is for the most part totally alien to anything the Average Joe encounters in daily life. I see a lot of DeFi repeating that mistake, and even doubling down on it–one of my friends is actually scared of DeFi (and crypto as well as finance in general) because of this.
In order to make DeFi less scary, we need to simplify its presentation, and that means abstracting, which means developing a vocabulary of metaphor and symbology that can be used to explain the system to anyone in a way that is intuitive. Simpler is better; this is the key to getting DeFi adopted beyond people who are already on the cutting edge of finance.
I’ve tried to use these feature, it doesn’t appear to work on our instance. Maybe it’s just me?
Google Docs is the overhead. Every additional piece of software that I have to use simultaneously to complete a task takes more computing resources, and therefore more energy, as well as potentially causing more mental overhead, and taking more time. I hate wastage, and I love efficiency, so doing things that way would make me itch.
It’s also important to remember that I don’t own anything that Google lets me use for free; this has vast implications for the concept of ownership. I like owning my data, and I think that the DAO should own its data too. And frankly it would be a waste of my time to understand whatever legalese (or otherwise) through which Google expresses that relationship, because it almost certainly means that I own nothing.
This isn’t even considering the issues I have with Google and their friends on principle.
Quite the opposite - I am deeply appreciative of your input. I just wanted to bring everything together for the sake of organization; there were several threads running with a common theme, and it seemed pertinent to regroup a little, rather than scatter the feedback over the existing threads.
Outside projects can offer whatever incentives they think are necessary to draw attention to their proposal. I hope I speak for everyone when I say that this is only acceptable if the voting incentives are symmetric across both FOR and AGAINST voters. In any case, the overheads are small for the 3rd party, as they only pay the incentive effectively once. If ourproject supported this sort of thing natively, the overheads are prohibitively high.
At the moment, governance is an opt-in process, and the protocol’s function for stakers is not intriniscally connected to their dedication to DAO operations. To connect the two is essentially the same as making DAO participation mandatory, which has some pretty severe trade-offs. This is probably a subject better suited to its own thread.
I agree in principal. Language is a hard thing to control, and the community largely creates its own words to define concepts. A good example is the word stake, used as a verb. This is a DeFi word, now.
It’s interesting how we differ in our forum practices. You make a separate post for each individual point, while I tend to lump everything together into one massive post. Your approach has advantages… I may experiment with that in the future–also I fear I annoy people with my massive walls of words.
Upon consideration of this argument, I now agree. I sometimes forget that doing things like this, even if we’re creating it from nothing (well, code), does have a cost even if it’s hidden in some way. (NOT intentionally, I would hope we’d never engage in such skulduggery!)
It must be remembered that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed–complex things are only de- and recomposed; value cannot spring from nothingness.
I somewhat disagree. Active participation in governance is indeed opt-in, but if I stake BNT, I automatically receive vBNT. I don’t have to do anything with it, but just having it automatically connects me–if indirectly, perhaps–to DAO participation; I have vBNT that exists and is not voting, and that is a well-established form of participation in the DAO–abstention (even unintentional). I agree, though, that this particular topic is best left to discussion in its own thread.
Any. I used “Sap” to distinguish the rewards from the other things conceptually, but frankly the model doesn’t deal with what Sap actually is or its origination, it only deals with it in the context of getting rewards to good voters. Sap–as well as Flow Governance–is a generic form, and we can (in theory, anyway) stick anything that emits money on to the back of it, then swap that out for something entirely different, and it shouldn’t look any different to the front end; the apparent functionality shouldn’t change when we change the parts feeding it. (Image if every time you changed battery brands in your car, you had to switch out the dashboard too; that’s what I want us to avoid)
I want to use the general ideas of both pure functional and generic programming (I dislike wikipedia but it’s most readily available) to build adaptable and easily-reconfigurable systems with small, standardized, discrete, modular parts. I think it’s a good way to conserve one of our most precious resources–developer hours.
I disagree; it is used frequently in DeFi and it has a specific meaning in our context, but even that still hearkens to the underlying meaning of the word: to nail something down, more or less permanently, presumably under the ownership of someone or for some purpose. That is what is happening when we stake our funds in an LP; we are nailing our money down to the pool so that it can be used for swaps. We did not change the meaning of the word simply by adopting it, we only added our specific context to its already vast library of contexts and have confused many people in the process.
Again I disagree. Language is hard thing to master; we’re both controlling language as we speak. A large part of mastery of a language is managing its vocabulary and using it effectively. Not that it particularly demonstrates mastery, but it may prove the point: Instead of saying “I disagree”, I could just say “No”. Both equally valid, and both are more-or-less equal measures of control of a language. The former is objectively longer, but the latter would appear rude; that’s a subtlety of the vocabulary. Those kinds of subtleties make mastery of a language, and lead to things like diplomacy–effectively, the art of telling someone to get bent in such a way that they look forward to it, and one cannot do that without mastery of language on some level.
The overall point being, language is not difficult to control, and we can feasibly invest time into refining exactly how we use it with an expectation of producing a measurable and favorable result.
As for the community making its own words for DeFi; yes, that’s the problem. Just like scientists, I think we’re terrible at naming things; if I ask literally anyone I know what a “perpetual swap” is, their eyes glass over–should seem obvious, but you’d be surprised. Our vocabulary is familiar, but our usage of it is not, and that’s what’s “scary” about it.
We seem to just use whatever happens to stick the most, which usually seems to be whatever the person who made it called it (fair enough), rather than applying a methodology to that to reach a happy medium where everything is labelled (maybe even by their creators) and the labels are intuitive and easy to get because they follow well-defined rules. (Lojban is a constructed language that is very good at this; I’m not suggesting we use it [it’d be neat though] but the underlying concepts are worth noting.)
By the way, I’m not at all suggesting that I would be better at naming things; I think my approach may work better in terms of not confusing people (I find it’s easier to attach a new concept to a new word than it is to an existing word), but “everyone likes their own brand”, so I suppose that may not mean much.
Does the majority of our team use Google Docs (or similar), or do they use OpenOffice (or similar)? (LibreOffice is better imho, btw)
People reach first for the easiest thing that does the job. It’s a perfectly natural thing, but it pays to be selective, and that’s not what I see in DeFi development. Obviously I want to make people’s jobs as easy as possible, so of course I’m not going to suggest they write their proposals in Assembler just so we don’t have to use dirty-nasty Google; that would be absurd. One must find suitable replacements, so instead of using Google Drive/Docs, one might use NextCloud, or get creative with an office suite and SyncThing, and I think LibreOffice has collaboration capabilities (never needed them yet, so I haven’t looked for them, but I heard something about that).