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:...

Fugazi

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

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.

hyronim

Fugazi I would just change the amounts of sLobi the governor can handle. Lobi is an inflationary token, thus, the voting power of one token decreases with time.

hyronim

How about that;

The governors would obtain some small % of the delegator’s staking APY.

Whereas there would be the airdrop for one person among everyone who participated in the voting (delegating would also be considered, thus eligible for the airdrop)

Fugazi

hyronim the voting power could be maxd out in a percentage instead of a sLobis value.

hyronim

Fugazi What do you mean?

Cthulhu

During the voting period for the LIP-9, I read through the proposal and relevant governance conversation, carefully considered what I know of tokemak, lobi, and web 3.0 in general, decided on how we could best synergize with tokemak with Carson and the team in their endeavours to be the leading defi market maker,

and then realized I can’t vote because I have no sLobi because I’m too busy minting the treasury.

Bonders, though we contribute to longterm growth of the protocol, cannot pragmatically vote on snapshot proposal that lasts less than 5 days.
Is there anyway to classify minted lobi as sLobi for voting purposes? Or to have voting tokens placed in the minting wallet that decay at the same rate as Lobi is dispersed to bonders?

This might involve more Lobists in the voting process.

plutusIIIIII

Cthulhu That’s a very good question. Instinctively, it seems contrary to the protocol’s interests to completely disenfranchise its bonders. Obviously, gLOBI would partially solve the issue, but only for whatever portion of the bond had vested and been claimed. Perhaps a Discord thread in Policy might get some good ideas on how to solve this.

tomatosoup

Honestly this doesn’t seem like a high priority issue atm. I don’t think it would impact voting that much. Long-term participants in LOBI aren’t dumping their bonded LOBI and stake it afterwards so it’s just a matter of five days, right?

plutusIIIIII

Well, there are several “serial bonders” participating regularly in funding our treasury. They’re extremely “invested” in the protocol in the sense that they want good governance that leads to price stability. If we can’t achieve that, they’ll lose interest in bonding. As experienced investors, I think the community governance process can benefit from their acquired wisdom, to the benefit of us all. I don’t have a short term technical solution to offer to the issue @Cthulhu noted, but gLOBI will present at least a partial solution.

Cthulhu

JTronderJ @tomatosoup
My exact thoughts. On these early votes, we all agree on the correct path forward, and as long as we make the quorum, it’s all good. Until we arrive at more contentious votes, it’s true that it isn’t the highest priority on how to move Lobis forward.

@plutusIIIIII I’m all for continuing the conversation in discord. Though gLOBI will already be a partial fix, perhaps there are other technical solutions.

Also, I wanted to take the opportunity to wish all of you Happy New Years!

May 2022 be an amazing, transformative year for all of you.

plutusIIIIII

Archiving for lack of activity

« Previous Page