It is a fair point about the RUNE vote. We do need to be more careful about observing the 2-3 day minimum, except for exceptional circumstances (this was not an urgent vote, and could have easily waited a week).
I think I found it:
What is the purpose of the 2-3 day minimum if the proposals are on snapshot for 3 days anyway?
Let’s say someone writes a proposal and pushes it to snapshot - while not the typical process - seems fine to me. It would be a shame to then disqualify it.
If the issue is that people need more time, lets make Snapshot open 4-5 days.
Essentially, to give the community time to review the proposal and provide feedback. FYI, this is part of our guidelines:
I 100% agree it is part of the guidelines
I guess I’m suggesting we reconsider. I would support a longer voting period instead of the review time.
Personally, I believe the review time allows for a more democratic process.
- It means that a proposal can be reviewed by the voter without voter bias, which might happen if we immediately put up a proposal for vote.
- Quite often proposals are tweaked/changed after receiving feedback from the community on the forum.
- If a proposal is unreasonable according to the participating community members on the forum, or non-feasible (even if only for the time being), the review process would ascertain the reasons to assume so and further explain/debate them.
That doesn’t mean we can’t debate on the duration of the review and voting windows.
Time for community feedback. The idea is that all proposals should be available with time for consideration and editing.
I agree with the points above about having a review time for proposals before they go on snapshot. There have been some recent proposals that do take longer than a few days to review (e.g. experimenting with fees on the stable coin pools, quorum requirements, etc…). The review time is crucial since it also lets us catch possible improvements (updating co-investment limits, discuss initial fees in the pool (see ichi for example), etc…) that need to be made on proposals.
The current cadence that we have at the moment is that votes go live on Monday (around 12:00PM UTC) and typically end on Thursday (3 days later). If there is no review time then theoretically votes can go live ASAP and this might throw off the expectations that we have set. I think most people have gotten use to reviewing proposals on weekends (Friday-Sunday) since our guidelines require at least two days before being put for vote. That means that Saturday is typically the cutoff and we see most new proposals go up before that day.
If we think that we should make voting longer then I think it quite reasonable to extend it until Friday or even Saturday if the DAO needs more time. An area of improvement that I think we should change is leaving the proposals/topics opened while the voting is live. We should close them once the voting finishes as this lets DAO members chime in on Discourse about a specific proposal if they have any questions, thoughts on why they voted for/against, clarifications, etc…
No vote declaration here this week. I’ve declared my support or lack thereof for the proposals on the table, and whichever ones that actually go to vote tomorrow I will vote on as I indicated in their threads. I will make a post following the vote explaining my positions. My apologies.
I voted FOR this proposal. Lido is an Ethereum Casper staking bridge that doesn’t make your Ether illiquid. Supporting this project and remaining competitive with it will bring numerous benefits to us in the long run.
I voted FOR this proposal. TrueFi is an uncollateralized lending protocol. It allows anyone to lend, but only whitelisted addresses may borrow. Furthermore, whitelisted clients must submit a loan proposal that lenders must approve before funds will be released. This has myriad applications, even within our own systems. We should support this project and remain competitive.
I voted FOR this proposal. If you’re familiar with M1 Finance or Stash, this crypto alternative to those services isn’t too far off, and it seems like they’re heading that direction quickly. I think this is one that we’ll want to keep close.
I voted FOR this proposal. I fully agree with @mbr; however, I have my own reasons for voting this way, which are that volume has noticeable dropped off (following a short flurry for 2-4 days) since May 20th when the fee was raised. This could be for other reasons, but I think it’s more likely that we lost aggregator traffic. This is one that we’ll want to keep on the low side, because if we capture more of that traffic, it doesn’t matter if the fee is lower, the volume will make up for it. Ether is a huge route that we need to own.
I voted AGAINST this proposal. While I support this project and I think it’s going to be one of the big winners, I think the timing of the vote is poor. We should wait until conditions are more favorable and what we can offer is more competitive.
I like to investigate every project that comes to us. Unfortunately, my investigations of a project are typically limited to reading–not by the project itself (most are fully usable apps), but because I simply cannot afford the gas to spend on toying with every project to get the kind of interactive demonstration that I’d like to have.
Furthermore, because a significant portion of my weekdays are sacrificed to my day job, my reading is limited to the project docs–if I could cut back on my day job hours, even just to part-time, I’d very much like to spend more time reading news about projects, and even having conversations with community members.
It is for this reason that I must call upon our community to assist, at least for the time being. At this point in time, I am not a highly-paid professional with a salary; I am an hourly-wage laborer. My income depends upon my spine. I humbly ask for donations; any funds given to me will be used in the following ways:
- ETH (or tokenized variants) will be kept and used to fuel exploring project apps.
- Other currencies will be used to explore project apps (where applicable).
- When not being used for exploring, other currencies will be applied to supplementing my income so I can devote more time to research and governance without needing to ask for future donations.
- No donations, BNT or otherwise, shall be used for staking vBNT in the governance contract until I am financially independent (which I measure to be ~$1,000 per month)–at which point, I will no longer need to ask for donations. This can be verified by my voting weight (not sure where to find a public source for that) minus my delegations. As of today, it should read 20.71 vBNT, and it should not move until I announce that I have reached my goal.
- Once I am financially independent, I will give full-time hours to governance–I’d spend my “9 to 5” on it, which is what I’ve been wanting to do from the beginning. Furthermore, I will devote 20% of my income to funding projects that improve quality of life for everyone; I will work with professionals to ensure that this is done via smart contract. * For example, one of the projects I’d like to fund is Gas Station Network.
I realize this is a big ask. But I will repay every TKN with the best governance I can provide, and I will endeavor to make the defi space better through your generosity.
I apologize for the complete lack of communication. To be honest, I’ve been burnt out and it’s been a struggle to find the motivation to do anything. I don’t mean to whine over the Internet; I’m just explaining myself, and I’ve learned that it often works out better for everybody if I drop the stiff-upper-lip act and lay out my headmeat as simply as possible for everyone to see so there’s no misunderstanding–as an aside, I appreciate it when others do the same for me, and the community members who’ve communicated with me in such a manner are a pure joy to speak to!
Long story short, I can no longer afford to juggle my jobs, my family, and the time investment required for the standard of work I want to hold myself to in Bancor DAO governance; it’s my opinion that if one is to govern the future of organizations and finance, one should aim to do it better than one’s predecessors (the elites of TradFi)–serving with the utmost devotion, transparency, integrity, honesty, and due diligence, for the greater good of all. Notably, my fellow delegates all meet these standards handily, and I am proud that they serve our community. But this requires a level of focus on this organization which I am simply unable to support at this point in time.
I’ll still be around, and I’ll still vote (not always), but essentially I’m formally retracting my bid for delegation, and putting governance on the “hobby” burner. Later, when I’ve built a bit of a passive income–I have a set of five rules and some neat little techniques that I can apply–and I am able to cut back my hours, I can gradually start to fade back into this. Any delegations to me from this point on should be done with the understanding that you’re doing so without any guarantee that I’ll vote the way you like, in a predictable manner, or even at all.
Or maybe things’ll go sideways and I’ll turn into the Diogenes of the community. Most of my peers think I’m bat$#%t already, so who knows!
I’m sorry to hear that, Chris.
I hope you are okay <3
Sorry to hear ! On the bright side Diogenes is probably one of my favorite philosophers and was able to dumb found Plato himself at times. We will wait for you, just make sure you don’t end up living in a wine barrel.