As we move through the process of progressive decentralization, we expect that we will be voting on more multi-choice proposals. For this reason, we propose to implement a quadratic voting strategy for all multi-choice votes on Snapshot. Implementing a quadratic voting system for multiple choice votes is expected to open the discussions to a wider audience by allowing voters to express how strongly they support the choices, by balancing the voting powers, and by allowing representation for all community members.
Motivation
As we build a community-owned IP, we understand the need to empower all stakeholders to vote on DAO initiatives. We’ve taken the first few steps in launching our governance system in April 2022. With 5 CUIPs passed, now is the time to iterate and improve our governance system. We believe that it is important for all stakeholders to have access to a mechanism that will best signal their preferences and how strongly they feel about them. By applying the quadratic voting system, we hope to:
Install a system that better represents individual stakeholder participation
Introduce a mechanism that allows players to choose more than one option in proposals with multiple choices
Give players access to a mechanism that allows them to express how strongly they feel about the choices they’re making
Details
“Single Choice Voting” is the voting strategy used on Snapshot for proposals that gauge approval or disapproval on a subject. We are yet to establish a voting strategy for proposals with multiple choices. Prior to this, we held the governance council election. CUIP-004 specifically stated that council elections will follow a weighted voting strategy. With this proposal, we wish to formalize the usage of the "Quadratic Voting’’ strategy for all multi-choice Snapshot votes, with the inclusion of the governance council election moving forward.
This proposal comes at no cost to the DAO, and no specific manpower changes are required to implement it.
Conclusion
As a community-owned IP, we wish to further empower all stakeholders to contribute to what we’re building together. Shifting to quadratic voting allows the community to express their preference in proposals with multiple choices, such as the governance council election. In the context of the governance council election, given that the council is expected to represent the interests of the greater community, it is imperative that each and every stakeholder be given the opportunity to choose and signal their desired representatives. We ask that the community vote in support of this.
I agree with this and think that once CU goes this way, we’ll see a lot of other DAO governance systems follow. It is important to have people see and feel like their votes matter, otherwise what’s the point in governance?
My only concern would be have there been sims done assuming a) max RBW supply, b) various concentrations held by whales, and what affect this can have on the voting environments? E.g. I mean has it been checked that 4 whales controlling 40% of supply can’t control outcomes through quadratic voting? And then another sim for 6 whales with 51% etc etc.
I support Quadratic Voting for Elections and multiple choice voting for community related events. I would be very weary to see QV used for anything to do with the DAO or treasury related votes. If it was to be used for anything to do with treasury I would like to see additional safe guards put in place. Having a council is a good safe guard. But it to needs a back up plan in case Council is ever compromised. I do support this. But would encourage those with expertise in voting system flaws to step forward and discuss any flaws QV has and how we can do our best to make sure to establish a system that is both fair and safe.
Short-term, LG+investor token allocation retains a combined share of 35%. While cannot be used to stake for rewards, these can be used to vote. So far we’ve only voted once, (Team and Investor RBW Token Lock Extension) and while we’ve only voted once so far, we do believe that there are moments where we, as creators of the IP, will need to step in and guide us forward. A Sybil attack would be a perfect example of it. If a QV proposal is subject to a Sybil attack, anybody from the DAO may write a counter-proposal to nullify the said proposal. These types of proposal with binary options will the retain single-choice voting system, so with the rest of the DAO, we can still collectively nullify the said questionable proposal.
Mid-term, we’re considering combining the QV voting system with the Proof of Humanity strategy on Snapshot. We’ll see how we actually proceed. Snapshot also is planning on adding the Gitcoin passport strategy. They discussed it on their Twitter Spaces last week. We have time to explore options even as Snapshot continues to iterate on their product.
The council session for the Quadratic Voting for Multi-choice Votes proposal has just concluded, and I am pleased to announce that we’re now ready to share the result:
Quadratic Voting for Multi-choice Votes Proposal
Yes to moving to Snapshot: 10
No to moving to Snapshot: 1
With this, the Quadratic Voting for Multi-choice Votes proposal has been moved to Snapshot for the sRBW holders’ consideration.
Snapshot: Snapshot
Start: December 13, 2022, 15:18 UTC
End: December 18, 2022, 15:18 UTC
These are still the early days of this project, and the choices made now will shape how the DAO develops. Those choices, expressed through voting, are what this is all about. Quadratic voting gives people the ability to more thoroughly express their opinions. That seems like the right direction to me.
To keep it much more enjoyable, we must decide together!
Because of the team’s strategy, for me personally, this is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I feel like a real partner, investor, and player.
