Governance of LOBIS

Fugazi · 2021-12-12T23:48:01+00:00

Governance of LOBIS ✍ DEPARTMENT or DAO: Policy WHY: Voting at this time does not have much participation and can be centralized. WHO: Fugazi#5341 WHAT:...

Governance of LOBIS

tomatosoup

Yes I think this will be the way forward. Direct democracy just doesn’t scale very well. But we need to design it so that there are still many delegates. We were discussing in the Discord some target of 20-100 holders delegating to each delegate on average. I would also suggest the need to regularly re-delegate to prevent delegates from abusing their power with little to no consequences because their constituents aren’t paying much attention.

But anyway definitely a conversation that needs to be had!

hyronim

Let’s be honest- most of holders care only about the price. Voting, governance, decentralisation- these phrases aren’t considered if they are not directly connected to the rising price. I think electing Governors would be a good Idea.

In our current democracies the paychecks don’t depend on actions the governors do. They do get paid regardless of positive or negative impact on stuff related to governing.

Is it possible to treat the paychecks (assuming we will deciede to reward/punish somehow the governors that will handle the voting for people who aren’t interested in active governing) adequately to the results of the Governor’s voting? If their voting made the DAO profit- they getting some % of it. If it had a negative impact- some % is taking away from their balance.

Fugazi

hyronim This makes total sense too, receive as the results of the all DAO

0xPHILOSOPHER

The longer the stake, the more voting power is one solution to allow small holders to get more voice. The idea of applying a 10% early unstaking fee is an elegant solution that benefits those who don’t cause selling pressure by staking nonstop. But unfortunately Lobis itself is governed by whales that to tend to unstake and sell without any penalties leading to drops in price, and the platform is at current stage very susceptible to strong criticism as Manifesto is not even remotely applied when it comes to voting (controlled by very few). I am fine with selling early but if part of that “profit” goes to the Treasury.

But yeah Governors is a good idea, skin in the game.

sparkes25

I cant see anyone wanting the job unless there is good payment.

They will need to review every governance vote in LOBIS, TOKE, FRAX, CURVE and OHM and that can take hours every day.

They will need to put up with justifying everything they vote foe as someone will always be unhappy

They wont be able to sell there earnings (this would force most people to say no imo)

to fix the issue of whales controlling LOBIS we could change it to 1 vote per wallet, yes whales will be able to split there funds over more wallets but sooner or later the fees and the effort needed will limit them.

tomatosoup

sparkes25 Whales can easily run bots to sybil attack so I’m not sure that’s a good idea.

I’ve had the thought of a multiple-tiered system of governance. You have a few levels of delegates. Let’s just say two. Level 1 interacts with holders and stays somewhat involved but they themselves delegate to Level 2 who are really involved but Level 1 can themselves re-delegate at any time. This could build a more resilient governance structure by involving more people.

IceCubeIIIIII

sparkes25 I think you need ambassadors for all below projects whose job is to manage relationships and provide guidance on the voting.

0xPHILOSOPHER

sparkes25

I contribute for free in a lot of projects because what is good for project is good for my portfolio. If Lobis is doing well in one year, I will be a very happy as I am with OHM. So skin in the game is enough incentive for me to contribute for free.

Fugazi

sparkes25 The one vote per wallet is a good idea to but doesn’t resolve the abstence problem.

I think governors with “prizes” per performance is a good way to go, and anyone could candidate to be governor and nobody is force to give their voting power to.

sparkes25

tomatosoup i understand whales can set up more wallets, but it will cost them to do so.

so yes they will still have an edge but it will be reduced.

lets say i have 1 LOBI and a whale has 1000. right now he has 1000x the voting power.

but for him to get the same voting power edge he would have to set up 999 new wallets and pay 999 ETH fees, so even if the ETH fee is $20 it will cost them an extra $19,980 to have the same advantage. so it wont stop it, but it will add a small reason for whales to have a little bit less edge

but its just a random idea, im sure there will be other better ones 🙂

sparkes25

IceCubeIIIIII

ambassadors could solve a chunk of the issue, but a thing we need to be wary of is making sure the person selected is not already a whale as this would just make them a bigger one. i also think there should be some sort of payment for there services as this will attract people to apply for the roles and devote time to the work needed.

IceCubeIIIIII

I think this proposal is brilliant!

I have to say: we have nothing against whales, and am pretty sure we would all like to be one. What we fight against are hostile vultures, but being a whale doesn’t you don’t mean well.

However, the fact that only 10% of holders vote is a problem, and everyone should have a say. I would support this proposal which I think is relevant and brings a lot of value!

Plus it is fun!

Fugazi

IceCubeIIIIII i would LOVE to be a whale for sure (haha) and i don’t want to END whales, my idea is more people to vote, more than 30% of the holders will be probably best number in all defi.

IceCubeIIIIII

Due to the technical challenge it represents, the formal proposal should mention "researchs for technical solutions to design a parliament election and delegation mechanism’

Fugazi

sparkes25 this is way no governoor can take more than 500 sLobi, here we have the wallet problem, but yet that will always be a problem.

tomatosoup

Just to be clear, I don’t hate whales. But we want to build a decentralized governance system where everyone has a voice. Indeed you bring up a good point that involving more people can be detrimental so we do have to be careful about that.

hyronim

To incentive people to participate in the voting we could make some random airdrop to one person. Only people who voted would be eligible for that.

Fugazi

hyronim this is the simple way to do it, yes.

Fugazi

TronderJJ just to clarify THIS IS NOT MY POINT. whale hunting. i’m a VEGAN for god sake (xD) we need more participation, just that.

tomatosoup

Here’s a proposal:

Enable delegation of voting power. Delegation may be chained: if A delegates to B and B delegates to C then C has the voting power of A, B and C.

Governance Participation Incentivization: Put aside a fund of LOBI. Every week there are snapshot votes, reward all those who voted with LOBI proportional to their voting power. However if they delegated, a portion will go to the delegate. Additionally, if they delegated to someone who already has a lot of voting power, take another portion out of their reward. If they did not vote, they get nothing.

The details can be worked out later but this is the general idea I’m thinking about. The idea is to introduce delegates but to prevent centralization, we try to involve as many people as possible. These people might not be able to vet every proposal but they’re still checked in to the ecosystem and can react in case of a serious controversy or problem. We let these folks handle the governance of their friends and earn some LOBI while they’re at it. Meanwhile, the folks who would be delegates anyway (in a normal one-tier delegate system) can dig in to the details of every proposal but with the awareness that their voter base is not as stable as it would be under such a one-tiered system so they will find it harder to misbehave.