:Chris Burniske and Hasu’s tweets drew my attntion today and I started thinking about it
As you can see in the replays there were a lot of negative replays and rightfully so I might add
Because as far as I know this kind of voting system had never been tried before which makes it very risky to start experimenting it at scale. One can argue we have a similar large experiment in China right now but, if you can trust the data it has no value (I think we all know that states & politicians are manipulating data for the “greater good”’ The FED PCE is a good example).
My thoughts were that doing something like this on a protocol scale might be destructive!
but what if we could experiment on a smaller scale?.
wouldn’t it drive attention from the space leaders?
IMHO we already see gouvernance experimentation as a trial and error process in a lot of the DEFI space and it’s only the start. it’s an opportunity for this project as the space leading governance protocol to lead the way right from the start.
i mean if i am part of maker dao’s team i’ll be the first coming through that door!!!
This kind of experimenting can be branded as Govenuns mining! (a blink towards NXM Shilled mining).
It will most definitely make the community more engaged because in essence it’s more like community bootstrapping.
Another potential upside for this is: driving the value proposition of this project much higher but only if in the end of this process we can get incentivised gouvernance right. I’ll explain my way of thought: if the outcome of this experiment will be a balanced gouvernance system based on checks and balances via incentives the value of CVP will blow up because now everybody wants to participate in governance some in direct manner, others Via delegation because this model will be forked to other protocols…
It will most definitely reinforce a moat around this project.
So, what it basically means is you get rewards for participating in governance and punished for being indifferent.
The incentive to participate in governance mining can be reduced vesting period for Beta’s, Gamma’s, LP’s and governance stakers (for the record I am an LP and I’ll be the first to participate).
everybody will be able to allocate some, none , or all of their voting power for gouvernance mining.
i didn’t go through any numbers at the moment because i don’t know what your reactions will be so the numbers written below is only for the sake of showing how i think about it:
1.Only a portion of the vested supply - We can decide this soft cap of this experiment will be up to 20% - 30% of the vested supply when mainnet is up and running (in order to mitigate risks). If we want to expand it later, we will be able to vote on expansion.
2.Participance is an option - All possible participants will be able to choose if and how much they want to stake.
Some of the cvp supply will be allocated from the 40,000 CVP locked for future allocation TBD and some will be allocated between the Gouvernance mining program participants. The contract will transfer funds from the punished wallets to the ones that need to be reworded.
There will be a threshold in which participants won’t be punished. For example: you’ll be punished only if you voted on less than 60% of total proposals (this threshold will need to go up as time passes…)
it will take some irritation but only if it something worth exploring. to me it is but first and foremost it depends on the replays here.
i’ll end with saying we need innovation to build a Moat around this project and it might be a part of it.
Look at it like that: voting systems are thousands of years old, we might just stumbled on something that can be destructive…
Fill free to draw hols or build layers on my idea would love to hear your thoughts