1c161f71facaffcb5e0f74cfc787847bf995f9e3
I propose that the threshold for an SPS governance proposal to pass the pre-proposal stage and be put to an official vote should be changed to require only that 5% or more of the total currently staked SPS vote for it (currently around 28M SPS). This would mean that it would no longer be possible to vote against a proposal in this stage.
The reasoning behind proposing this change is that the pre-proposal period is meant to be a time where a proposal can be put in front of the community and the author can gather feedback and make changes before going to an official vote, as well as to filter out any obviously ridculous or very unpopular proposals. It is NOT meant to be a way for opponents of a proposal to be able to stop it from going to an official vote.
The majority of the active, voting SPS stake only sees proposals once they get to the official vote stage, and in my opinion every reasonable proposal should have the opportunity to go to an official vote and be put in front of all active SPS stakeholders.
The official vote is the time when the proposal will be 100% finalized and the time when opponents have the opportunity to voice their stake against it. I believe that it is unfair to the nearly 2/3 of active staked SPS holders who don't follow the pre-proposals for reasonable proposals to be shot down before they even get a chance to officially vote on them.
Based on a review of all of the past pre-proposals, it seems that 5% of staked SPS (about 28M) is a good threshold that indicates that proposals are reasonable and have enough support to warrant an official vote, which is why it was chosen. If approved, this change will go into effect immediately after the official vote ends for both new and existing, active proposals in the pre-proposal state.
While I think it is a good idea to give more opportunities for proposals to be voted by everyone, I still see some problems:
First, the people voting in pre-proposals are the ones really interested in governance. I know a number of players that just cast their votes to get rid of the notification window, without giving a serious thinking about the proposal itself.
Also, more votes will mean more complaints about "endless voting notifications" from players who are not interested in governance.
Finally, since there is no way to show one's opposition to a pre-proposal, it will probably reduce the discussion. People will know it will be sent to official vote anyways (5% is not so high) and they can just skip the pre-proposal and directly vote during the official proposal period. It may have a serious impact as people will have to make a choice with less quality feedback (for or against).
Hopefully this could be fixed. i.e a vote for For/Against and Pass?
Notification pop up has annoyed the fk out of me before. Think i voted no just to shut it up! 🤣
Edit: Another thing that may be of use, is if not voting For/Against you have to pick an option from a list of why not. ie 1) don't understand it. 2) not interested 3) above my pay grade etc
I think having a "comment" field could provide useful info for any vote: whether yes, no, or pass. That way of something fails, the proposer could see the reasons people voted against
Second this but the comment section should be and cannot be viewed by other people other than the Splinterlands devs and the main proposer.
The reason for this is to avoid harassment and influencing other people's votes. There is a link to the main proposer's hive post and people can voice out their opinions there. The comment section for the votes is more like anonymous.
I apologize if I cannot express myself properly. It is 1:40am now.
TLDR, I don't want the possible comment section to be another reddit/twitter/youtube comment section. I don't think influencing other people's opinion is good right before they vote.
I think it should be on the blockchain, stored with the Vote itself. However, it doesn't necessarily need to be prominent or focused, and keeping a short length would make sense too. Most people would probably let their vote stand for itself without spending too much time to comment.
However, for me, if I saw a large SPS holder was voting against, I think it is in the public interest to be able to see why?
Yes, that could be a good idea to introduce a "pass" choice for proposals!
It opens a big debate about how to account for these "pass" votes though 😅 Should we consider that they are fine with either outcome and do not count their voice to approve or reject a proposal, or should we count them in ?
In the first case, the Pass vote will simply become a "do not remind me" button, and in the second it will become basically a 2nd "No" button.
Not an easy thing to do in the end, but it could more accurately represents the opinion of the whole community toward a given proposal.
The idea of the questionnaire is nice as well, but I think the idea of pre-proposals serve the same purpose, it gives time for people to say if they are interested or not. Except that we never thought about asking who did not care 😆
Based on your argument, I think the pass button should only be a do not remind me thing and should not count vote towards anywhere.
I mean, if you disagree, then vote for no. You don't need to vote for pass.
Well, the answer might not be as easy as it seems.
Indeed, making the button as a "don't remind me" option is the right solution if we consider that people can only be 100% for or 100% against the proposal.
In this case, clicking pass means "I don't care" and we can consider that this person will be fine with either outcome.
However, that becomes more complex if we want the governance system to take in account other answers that 100% yes or no. It makes sense because proposals can be long, complex and involve multiple components. Therefore, someone can have mixed feelings about the proposal and not wanting it to pass entirely while at the same time not wanting that all ideas in it become forever classified as "rejected by the community". In this case, allowing a "Pass" option and taking it in account can lead to a follow up vote.
For example, above a certain percentage of "Pass" vote, we can decide to launch a discussion thread and then rewrite one or multiple proposals that can be variations of the original proposal, or a simplification.
While it is possible at now to rewrite a different proposal right after one has been rejected, people might vote no by default arguing that this has already been rejected. Using a Pass option makes it clear that a 2nd version of the proposal is required.
Overall, it makes things slower but more accurate. But this is only needed if we think the governance system should allow more answers that simply yes and no. This is really a choice about what kind of governance philosophy we want ^^
I understand your point. However, I think making the pass button as "remind me later" button can be more confusing. I mean, if you wanted to be reminded later, just close the notification.
Also, I am thinking of this in a government election standpoint. You can choose a candidate that you want (meaning you vote a yes for them and no for others) or just don't vote at all.
So, in this proposal, You actually have 4 choices: Agree, disagree, pass (I don't care. Don't remind me for this one) and ignore (not a button. Just literally close or ignore the notification so you will be reminded of it again on your next login)
The pass button is just that. It's a pass for this proposal. Like you said, either the voter don't care and/or fine either way.
I do agree on making this more accurate so I think a comment section would be good on all agree, disagree and pass votes. So, even if you pass, you have the option of expressing why you are okay either eay or don't care or if you have suggestion. Of course, comments will be optional.
I think rather than making this complicated for the sake of accuracy is bad because it would be confusing for most. So, it would be better if everything is literally what it's meaning. "I click on the pass button because I want to pass. No hidden meaning behind it."
I might be wrong but I believe making this simple is better overall.
That above my paygrade had me.. 🤣.
I for one were kinda annoyed in the pop up notif regarding the proposal, I think its better that the option regarding the notif is that the excerpts or at least the title of the proposal is shown so that players can at least have some knowledge regarding the proposal up for vote, and there should be a choice outright to decline or at least put the notification to end like (dont remind for today). That way, those who are against (depending on an obvious title) will be able to vote against outright, and for those who are curious what the proposal is about can check based also on the excerpts or title of the proposal, or at least put a set of time CD for the notification to pop up again. :D
just my small cents though..
Now, Everybody is Happy!
Can't tell if this is support or sarcasm... I guess I don't know you as well as I thought. 🤔
Mostly sarcasm
😁💙👏
That's my guy!!
[...]
[...]
Agree that every reasonable proposal should have a chance at least to be voted, the main problem is that what"reasonable" is changes for every person, it's very subjective. If there isn't a consensus imo it's fair to assume that wasn't reasonable for a majority of the stake (I mention stake because doesn't need really to be a majority).
Imo would be fair to just make it a lower threshold to pass though.
Congratulations @yabapmatt.sps! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 600 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
I like the idea that downvotes don't kill a preproposal, since we've seen lots of people vote for a pre-proposal just so it passes into the broader game. I have two points that I'd like to perhaps clarify? [edit - three points]
FIRSTLY: If we make this change, can we still encourage and measure opposition votes?
I suspect that pre-proposals will have a tendency to look past much of the constructive feedback between the preproposal stage and the final proposal stage, since there is no way to measure actual opposition. One can naturally expect there will be a tendency to prioritize keeping supporters, rather than working with opposition since their impact can't be measured easily. Perhaps we still encourage and measure downvotes, but they don't prevent the proposal from advancing?
Then the preliminary downvotes should somehow be disclosed or addressed in the final version of the actual SPS Proposal vote?
SECONDLY: Once a proposal is "out there" - should it be a "public good," instead of owned by the initiator?
As another concern, we've also seen that, in practice, proposals have been considered "owned" by the initiator... despite the fact that it is the community that decides whether they advance. Just as an example, @yabapmatt.sps - you made a suggestion and "asked" @theukm about modifying the anti-bot proposal. At that point, theukm's initial proposal already had enough support to have met the 5% vote to advance. But he, alone, had sole authority to modify the proposal drastically, even after a number of voters had already cast votes and it was the community, not theukm, that had voted to advance the initial version of the proposal.
Ultimately, the sps community voted to approve the modified version, but once the community starts voting, I don't know that a preproposal should be owned by the initiator anymore? And especially, after a preproposal meets a level of support to advance, if feedback should be consolidated and advanced by the community leaders, Splinterlands, or something similarly independent?
The reason I think of this is, let's say an initial proposal was advanced, and based on feedback from the community, there was a block of 5% that voted to modify and advance a modified version. Can the initial submitter kill a community voted proposal, and withdraw their proposal if it's not in line with the initial vision, or has it become a public good once it's submitted?
THIRDLY: Can we include an ability to fast track pre-proposals and proposals if they are time sensitive?
We saw with the Vruz proposal that it was killed due to a concern that there was a dangerous precedent of acting before authorized.
I'd suggest that a pre-proposal can be somehow be labelled as time-sensitive, and as soon as it hits the required 5% threshold, it is eligible to advance to the game. There should also be an option for a shortened official voting period as well, although it should require a sufficiently large base of voters to pass it. This is to give the DAO a mechanism to act quickly if conditions warrant it (e.g. a collapse of a DAO owned stablecoin, or some other black swan event)
Hey Matt! Could you share the ways that ridiculous or unpopular proposals would be filtered out? I guess I've incorrectly assumed that voting them down in the pre-proposal stage was the way to go about it. Thanks!
I think he means they will simply fail to get enough upvotes to pass the 5% threshold
Oh, I see now - thank you!
Honestly while I approved of the idea, I'm a little disappointed with the engagement.
I wish that there had been some discussion or attempt to address any of the questions here before this moved into the game for final vote... this pre-proposal was authored, had limited engagement, and moved into the game without any responses, comments or any other indication whether any of the feedback was considered, or even read. No edits, no likes, no responses.
Splex says this proposal had 2% of staked SPS voting for it - by it's own standards it wouldn't even advance to the game for a vote. I get that the governance process isn't the most exciting thing in the Splintersphere, but this seems to have been completely forgotten about...
Maybe engagement would be higher in case already the pre-proposals were held in game, there, were the players actually are? :-)
Yes probably. I believe that eventually the pre-proposals will be better integrated in-game.
However, I was more speaking to the fact that there was no response or dialogue from the author of the proposal during the 7 day discussion period. I thought the intention of the preproposal period is to give an opportunity to gather feedback before it goes to an official vote in its final form. There was feedback, but I don't know if it was even read. That's all.
Agreed 100%
Does this mean we won't have half baked proposals put in front of us?
This sounds good but will it lead to too many proposals? I for one think we should have a proposals window, perhaps 1 month out of every 6, then let the game be in its current state, so that investors have some idea that at least for the near future there won't be drastic changes to the game's economy affecting their asset values.
Problem identified but I think the wrong solution, voting no but please rethink , and re propose
Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @yabapmatt.sps!
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-Proposal
Updated At: 2023-05-15 15:15 UTC
I've heard from quite a few frustrated people that they feel the pre-proposal process is hard to follow. I think this change is good because it will give more people a chance to weigh in on legit proposals. I agree that if you can get 5% of the total SPS in votes, then you have a proposal that should be considered.
I also think your point about making changes to the pre-proposal is not well known. Some feel that if changes are made, then a new proposal must be put forth. I can see both sides and feel that this is something you might want to re-iterate the next time you are on a town hall.
Overall I support any process that lets the community decide issues via good governance, and this I believe will give more SPS holders a voice since they will see the proposals via the ingame notifications.
I think pre-proposals should be held in game, there, were the players actually are.
I agree... I think that is the goal and they are just using this process til they can devote DEV time to bringing it ingame.