Removing the expedited governance framework and the quadratic voting

LeTube

DEPARTMENT : Governance

WHY: Expedited governance framework has totally replaced the normal governance framework even though it was not supposed to be the case. This is endangering the DAO which is supposed to be a model in terms of governance processes. When Olympus has a two-week process, we have a 48h one.
Furthermore, this is aggravated by the use of quadratic voting, which allows proposals to pass with a very small minority, as long as a team of several people are coordinated to perform governance attacks. For example, last proposals passed with expedited governance, so not even 40 addresses voted, and biggest holders didn’t get the chance to vote, and it passed with a small minority. This is making the DAO extremely vulnerable to sybil governance attacks, and mafias.

WHO: Le Tube

WHAT: Removing the expedited governance process and the quadratic voting should make the DAO much more resilient to governance attacks. The point that someone could just buy all the tokens and get majority is not valid due to the very low liquidity of LOBI. It would take weeks to buy majority, and a normal governance framework would give time to the community to react.

HOW: Stop using the expedited governance framework, and forbid quadratic voting in the snapshot strategy.

WHEN: Normal governance framework

Cthulhu

Good morning LeTube. Thank you for taking an active approach to Lobis governance, I can see why Stakedao and large holders would want to remove the quadratic voting precedent put in place by Exalted.

The two aspects of your proposal, removing the option of expedited governance, and removing quadratic voting (a failsafe to protect the masses against whale games), both constitute modifications to the internal governance mechanisms of Lobis.
Because of this, they fall under the purview of LIP-18 and the governance council.

The governance council would be more than happy to recieve your proposal in a voice conversation during this week. From there, we will be more than happy to decide how to proceed.

Cheers,

GregS

LeTube I’m in favor of cutting back use of the expedited governance framework, with more rigorous discussion on if and how much urgency is needed to to achieve proper governance while still getting things accomplished in a timely manner, which is likely to be on a case-by-case basis.

When everything is urgent, nothing is urgent; yet removing it all together should be avoided unless this proves to be a habit.

plutusIIIIII

Quadratic voting has been used to decide every single one of the 19 Lobis Improvement Proposals to-date. The intent of quadratic voting is to minimize undue influence from very large wallets so as to reduce the risk of anyone “buying” an election. This is very much in keeping with both Lobis’ ethos and the larger intent of DeFi in general (at least, as originally articulated). This is a noble purpose, a method that has served us well to-date, and I can see no good argument for abandoning it.
The Expedited Governance timeline was an option introduced very early-on (LIP-5, passed on Dec 5, 2021), because the leadership (Authors: Exalted and Platone) clearly saw the need for us to act nimbly, and our original standard governance process simply took too long. They envisioned and explained that the need for Expedited Governance would eventually be replaced by fully delegating most routine decision-making and actions to sub-daos. Regrettably, that has not yet happened. So we will (and should be expected to) continue using Expedited Governance as-needed until such time as full empowerment of the sub-daos takes place.

plutusIIIIII

I should also note that, in the case of the most recent use of expedited governance, I explicitly stated in the proposal, in bold, just above the expedited governance poll “Although this is not an emergency measure, we are submitting the proposal with an expedited timeline request in the interest of getting started on the project as soon as possible.”

Mr_E

StakeDAO, a top 5 holder, proposes for whales to have a larger influence in governance matters. The long-term goal of Lobis from a community standpoint is sybil resistance + QV. We are without Sybil resistance as it stands today but are exploring options.

One token, one vote plutocracy models dominate through Defi and tbf are deeply flawed. I’m shocked you want to control the DAO with your large holdings and are implicitly advocating for more centralization. Explain to me how this proposal aligns with our core mission to resist the natural forces to centralize?

The above may sound harsh, but I’m not being political here, this is poor form.

Without a doubt, I’m game for curtailing expedited governance, but jeez, how am I supposed to view a proposal like this in good faith for the health and betterment of the protocol for all holders, not just you as the largest holder of Lobi?

Just an interesting approach when we as a protocol went a different direction with our angle and didn’t use SDT lockers. Seems aggressive across the board.

LeTube

Mr_E I get your point, but then it means it makes no sense for protocol to do token swaps and for whales to buy (unless using Sybil attack method to maintain proper power). In most protocols, it’s seen as fair the fact that the more you have skin in the game, the more your voice matters. If it’s not the case here, if you don’t accept big owners, we will probably need to review our options.

mrthedude

I would only be interested in removing quadratic voting if it were replaced by something which more effectively ensures a fairer democratic process. The 1 vote per token system is backtracking and leaves us more vulnerable to centralization, ngmi. I am always very interested in discussing alternative voting systems if they can improve upon our current system but I don’t see any benefits with the current proposed changes

[deleted]

I agree with the sentiment expressed by @GregS above. Also, it should be noted that although Quadratic Voting has been used for a lot (not all) of our votes it is also not a perfect process.

Concerns previously expressed being that 1 wallet with 100 LOBI can craft a proposal distributing their LOBI amongst 10 different wallets and have more voting power than they “should”.

Ultimately every governance process will have its drawbacks, in our attempts to cater for all we’ve created a Frankenstein process that is not fit for most but is currently excellent for passing proposals through “distributed” holdings. Re @plutusIIIIII point regarding delegated powers, decentralization is not 0 and 1 but rather a continuous process. The ability of @plutusIIIIII himself and other core team members to make decisions within their domains can attest to the fact that we are on the route to this journey via delegated powers, we should continue to that end.

To reassure our partners and prevent the currently heated environment from spiraling further the Snapshot rules have been restored to default with every proposal requiring 2 hours voting delay, 2 days voting period, a quorum of 15k LOBI/sLOBI with the default/‘basic’ snapshot strategy as standard within the DeFi space. All proposals will have to be mirrored on snapshot by the originally whitelisted address.

These emergency processes are in place until a robust decision-making framework can be created that negates the currently abused expedited governance process.

amc88

[deleted] a) that’s a nice and decentralized response, you aren’t even pretending that we’re a DAO anymore??? b) i don’t know how you can say these things when you’ve removed the community’s ability to post to snapshot anymore c) at least your message suggests that you’re still around so that we can finally get the LIP past votes put into place

mrthedude

LeTube larger holders in the current system do have larger say, it’s just mitigated to minimize dictator risk. I am personally opposed to 1 token/1 vote for that reason but very open and interested discussing other options ✌️

SCNightshade

Dear @LeTube and @[deleted]

It pains me to see your guys’ choice of reactions.

I respect Exalted choice of a diplomatic route by changing the governance process to DeFi’s default snapshot option, but we will than become what we are trying to fix.

Every snapshot that went live on Lobis has been quadratic voting. To hear every person’s voice, from the minor retail investor to the giant whales.

I admit that it will be a continous process, but such a process has to move forward and not take a step backward.

Going back would go against our Ethos, values, and very self. I started contributing to this project because of the very letters that inspire me to fix governance and protect decentralization.

I plead to you and the founders to let Lobis not become what we seek to fix.

I plead to @LeTube and The Founders and each Lobis Contributor (Envoy and Core), to sit down with each other and have a conversation on how to move forward.

Sincerely,

SCNightshade

SummerFridays

I am strongly against the elimination of quadratic voting. You assert that the protocol is vulnerable to governance attacks if a minority of token holders can carry the vote. But considering the current token distribution among wallets, if we regress to the flawed one-token-one-vote model then as few as one or two wallets (not 40) would be able to prevail on almost any vote. You seem to be arguing for a solution that exacerbates the very issue you are raising.

Totally agree with @[deleted] and @GregS’s take on expedited voting. It’s a useful tool to keep our protocol nimble, but it also shouldn’t be the default operating model.

One last thought:

I think that all LOBI holders want respected and influential protocols to be part of our community. But I don’t think anyone likes the idea of corporate capture. StakeDAO currently enjoys outsized (but not absolute) influence with quadratic voting. There are many other creative ways to ensure that large holders like StakeDAO enjoy elevated influence without turning Lobis into a plutocracy.

There are countless paths forward.

I don’t believe this proposal is one of them.

CMill

I am certain I do not speak for everyone here, but this is completely against why I came to this project. Why would anyone without the financial ability to fight for top 10 holdings in LOBIS ever bother coming here if we claim to be good faith guardians of defi and we let whales and large holders completely dictate the protocol’s future?

If StakeDao (or any other whale) wants to control LOBIS without the input of the community and retail investors, then maybe they SHOULD go explore other options? Maybe it’s not the right project for you to be investing StakeDao’s resources in. This project is meant to keep defi decentralized and here you are pushing for centralization.

We won’t climb out of this hole with the constant threat of “I’ll dump and leave if I don’t get my way” and frankly, “I’m rich, f*ck you” is not a position to take in a partnership. I’d rather take the price hit today than deal with this in the future.

Cthulhu

The following quote is why I signed up. In @[deleted]’s own words.

"When protocols use other protocols’ decentralization oriented tokenomics against them, something needs to be done… “When the richest users hold all the power, these protocols do not belong to the people. Lobis is here to change that… This collaboration will be mutually beneficial for Lobis and Olympus. The two protocols are complementary, with Olympus focused on building the sole decentralized reserve currency and Lobis, the decentralized governance regulator. Together, our two DAOs will provide the infrastructure of a fair decentralized financial system.”

If this is no longer the goal of the founders, then I ask that they provide the smooth transition of operational power to the core team that they agreed on in previous weeks. Lobis was initially created to prevent exactly what will happen if quadratic voting is removed.

So unless you are completely unruffled by the reputational risk that you are currently courting, complete the transition of power.

https://forum.olympusdao.finance/d/372-oip-44-implement-lobis-as-a-governance-arm-of-olympusdao/5

Mr_E

@LeTube way to kill our DAO. Thanks mate.