As we are looking to change certain mechanics of the DAO and Co-Investments are essentially becoming the same as WL in terms of quorums, except for amounts higher than 1M BNT, I thought we could have 3 option votes rather than two so that we can give people more diversity of choice. There might be people that are okay with white-listings but not co-investments and there is no way for them to vote in that manner for a lot of proposals (most) since almost every whitelisting comes with an added co-investment requirement.
Unless I am missing something I believe as shown above that snapshot already supports this feature. If we want to go forward with this then the voting would be split up this way.
Since each voter is allowed to only choose one option, how do you determine which option will win? Would we still use our majority requirements so that the option that has 66.7% majority will win? I think this would be a lot better to implement when ranked choice voting is available. As it stands now, what ends up happening is that if the Whitelisting with Co-investment fails then future proposals end up either dropping the Co-Investment amount or eliminating it all together. From what I have seen, most proposals typically get brought up again two-four weeks after they have failed.
As @glenn points out, the issue is that there is no obvious way to handle the supermajority and quorum rules with multiple options. Preference voting will allow this to change, but will also introduce a little complexity for DAO proposals. We should certainly spend some time thinking about how to bring multiple-choice options into the process.
