Change to Vote Counting

Proposal Submitted: Snapshot [INSERT HASH]

Change to increase Voting Rights for Staked SOUL

The purpose of this proposal is to count the staked SOUL in the SOUL-SOUL LP as well as the current votes counted by WALLET balance at snapshot time

Design

Currently only Wallet Balance of SOUL is taken into account at snapshot for voting. This ignores all SOUL staked in the FARMING LP’s as well as just SOUL Staked.

Whilst a longer term solution is to use a governance pool based on staked SEANCE for voting, this is still weeks away, and might take even longer to implement.

Given that people who have been supporting the project have staked most of their SOUL and continue to re-invest, it would give much more community governance, and realistic voting rights to include staked SOUL in the Voting Snapshots.

Details

The Proposal is to include STAKED soul in the Vote counting process.
Choice 1 - For all future Voting, include Staked SOUL in snapshot for voting rights
Choice 2 - keep voting only to wallet balance

At a minimum the requirement would be to include pure STAKED soul, but if it is easy and quick to add staked SOUL in LP’s this would be preferred. All other tokens in LP’s are to be ignored. BUNS to decide effort involved in pure STAKE vs SOUL in all LP’s.

Implementation

BUNS to DECIDE:

  1. Add STAKED SOUL + WALLET Balance in Snapshot
  2. Add STAKED SOUL + SOUL in LPs + WALLET balance in snapshot

Voting takes place here: Snapshot [INSERT HASH]

Would you be open to adjusting the proposal to strictly using “SEANCE + SOUL” balance? The reasons I recommend this adjustment are as follows:

  1. Enables a clear and easy way to acquire balances that doesn’t require calculating the underlying SOUL in an LP at the time of the snapshot

  2. Adds intrinsic value to SEANCE thereby encouraging market consumption.

  3. Most true to our eventual model of SOUL = 1 vote and SEANCE = staked amount * time staked.

When you say SEANCE + SOUL I assume you mean WALLET balance only?

If that is easiest, I’m happy to make that the first step, I was hoping that pure SOUL staking is easy to count ?

The only reason I’m against “only” wallet balance, is because you incentivize everyone to lockup SOUL and SEANCE in LP’s, and we want more TVL, so excluding long term TVL providers from voting is unfair in my view …

2 Likes

I’d happily vote on this basic, call it “interim” proposal to count either Staked SOUL + Wallet SOUL, or wallet Seance or a combo of both. I totally agree with Master’s last sentence - incentivized to stake shouldn’t be an obstacle to governance. These two should be cooperative, not oppositional. I’ve also looked everywhere to try to find where it explains how current governance works and I can’t find it anywhere. I didn’t know the snapshot meant that our SOUL value was fixed (I don’t remember that factor at all from the original practice votes) and that our SOUL value is basically our vote. I feel a bit hard done by regarding this Grim vote basically and I believe it’s going to cost me money. I’d suggest rerunning the vote with either 1 person 1 vote system or with this interim SOUL/SEANCE/Staked balance option. Cos right now basically 1 guy has swung the vote enormously against the majority of voters. Surely at the very least the majority should win, rather than 1 whale, accidental or not.

Just to be clear, we used the exact same method we used in the practice proposal and the methodology is standard practice as a default vote for the vast majority of DAOs. We followed standard procedure, my apologies we failed to do a better job of clarifying this, but we certainly tried our best to convey this information.

Hopefully at least this is taken constructively as enlightening now that we can call attention to the voting process and how we might improve.

Since we did stick to standard practice, it would be disingenuous to stop the vote or have a revote and would set a bad precedent. Had we used a method we did not introduce previously, I would support a revote 100%, but I don’t agree this instance constitutes a justifiable cancellation.

2 Likes

I wrote in TG, I’m ok with the outcome of the vote, we didn’t expect it because 1st round was no SOUL staking, so everyone voted based on initial investment … My aim with this proposal is to improve it, short term for the next vote, with minimal effort.

So kinda go back to my question, what is the effort in build/test/deploy hours for:

  1. Count WALLET SOUL + SEANCE
  2. Count WALLET SOUL + Staked SOUL-SOUL LP (PID 0)
  3. Count WALLET SOUL + all Staked SOUL

happy to put all 3 to vote + OPTION 0 = DO NOTHING for now…only WALLET SOUL is counted

After discussion with BUNS,

The Proposal is to include STAKED soul in the Vote counting process, this will be done through wallet snapshot of SEANCE balance to align with future governance pool model.
Choice 1 - Include SOUL + SEANCE in Wallet Snapshot for Voting
Choice 2 - Stay with SOUL only in Wallet snapshot

Implementation

After discussions with Buns, the quickest model would be to snapshot SOUL + SEANCE in Wallet, hence proposal has been adjusted.

YES this is the right path IMO, just using the SEANCE-SOUL pool would be a long term solution which will benefit the whole ecosystem, other solutions I see will hurt providing liquidity which may not be ideal specially right now that we are starting up.

How about we resolve this without a proposal to make it easier for everyone? I went ahead and added another strategy that incorporates the balance of SEANCE in addition to the balance of SOUL, since this remains truest to our eventual governance vault. Is this a fair solution until we add the governance vault? I ask since you authored this proposal.

1 Like

Sounds good to me, SOUL + SEANCE in Wallet …
Will you publish a proposal to vote on? or will it just be announced since it is inline with previous discussions that SEANCE counts towards voting

Delighted to mention we’ve rolled out AURA for governance, which is a hybrid approach, as discussed here, thanks guys!