Proposal 7: Reputation System

Proposals
1

Summary
The PowerPool team is planning to give vested CVP, held by testers, voting rights. If this change is implemented then the power of whales, who got free tokens, will increase ten fold. Why? Beta and Gamma control 10,000,000 CVP which is 2X the current circulating supply. In addition, the average holder, excluding outliers- testers, have about 2,000 CVP. Therefore, the popular opinion must garner 25 community members for each tester vote. Currently, a tester’s voting power is 25X a normal holder. We all know that governance participation is low across all DeFi protocols. If this is implemented then it will cement whales’ undisputed leverage over the protocol. Let us remind ourselves that Powerpool’s core mission was to leverage the popular vote.

Abstract
To alleviate these issues, we propose the following:

1.Diminish voting power of remaining vested testers, 10,000,000 CVP, to 50% to match current circulating supply — 5,000,000 CVP. This would allow for a better forum for the popular vote to potentially thrive in.

  1. Boost voting power of active governance members

  2. Boost voting based on holding period

  3. Deduction of voting power if tokens are transferred out

Footnotes:
1. If tokens are involuntarily vested then it won’t count towards boosting.

Motivation
The motivation here is simple. Allow PowerPool to be the change that it wishes to see in other DeFi governance protocols. Testers are being compensated for their work through free CVP. There’s no need to compensate them indirectly through over-leveraged voting power. Let’s build a community where popular opinion wins. Let’s incentivize the active participants in forums and voting. The proposal put forward would give all participants who participate and hold more voting power. This is fair since their actions are those of long term holders. This proposal could also increase buying and limit selling. Nothing is lost since voting power is deduced when tokens are transferred out of the contract.

Specification
Reputation would be a dual, non-transferable, token model system which is preminted and claimed. This is similar to DxDao’s system which aims for holographic consensus. This would amplify users’ votes according to their participation and time held. For example, if you own 100 CVP then you own 100 REP with REP sliding.

For the initial distribution of REP the team will snapshot the governance proposals’ voters/participants from Vote #1 till 24/9/2020. This first REP distribution shouldn’t take into account time held in order to simplify it.

13 Likes
2

Im for this proposal
I can add only that giving 10 000 000 cvp voting power to testers will lead to Oligarchy because testers as a group have same interest conflicting with other groups/
No doubt that more powerful group will oppress others (at least connecting to vesting)
Governance is when token holders are in charge. Not people who PROBABLY will hold tokens.

4 Likes
3

I agree, giving them voting power on vested CVP is terrible idea. They would no doubt control all the voting power yet have invested very little of their own capital into the project. The reputation proposal seems like a fairer system

4

If someone disagree with that statement please read the book “Skin in the Game. Hidden Assymetries in Daily Life” (Nicholas Taleb) first :slightly_smiling_face:

4 Likes
5

Great book-highly recommended!

6

Perfect. I totally agree with you.

1 Like
7

Unnecessarily convoluted and overly complex. Keep it simple please.

Over time gamma and beta testers will sell their tokens. Current non-testers can buy these tokens, in addition to mining via LP, or farming after go-live. There are MULTIPLE ways that non-testers can accumulate voting power. It’s preposterous to try to diminish the current voting power of testers’ token supplies in this way.

8

Gamma and beta testers curently have NO voting power. Nothing to diminish here. Why? becouse they dont bought this privilege.
Try to go to Unyswap\curve\ bal\Yfi and say " team plz give me voting power! Ii dont bought any tokens but i will! next year maybe when price go lower. But i want to have same privelege as holders asap!"

9

I am FOR this proposal.

Looks like the technical part can be implemented pretty seamlessly

4 Likes
10

There are MULTIPLE ways that non-testers can accumulate voting power. It’s preposterous to try to diminish the current voting power of testers’ token supplies in this way.

You’re suggesting non-testers must buy new tokens and take on additional risk to match testers’ voting power? That’s over $100,000 dollars right now. Since testers got free tokens I would suggest that you go ahead and do that.

11

Whilst gamma and beta testers may in actuality not currently be able to vote, their vested tokens DO have voting power. This was always intended to be the case, and has been communicated by the team multiple times in the discord. Please pay more attention in the Discord.

12

I know that team want to do this but i belive its wrong. On chain gorvernance should work as it works in Unyswap\curve\ bal\Yfi…

1 Like
13

I didn’t get your point what is your pushback against the proposal?
What are the drawbacks of this offer?

14

i don’t necessarily agree with having voting power boosted based on “activity” seems it would be pretty subjective, introduces unneeded variables. the only “boosts” that would make sense would be something like curves locks. I also don’t agree with having your voting power deducted on tokens transferring - that makes no sense i move tokens to different wallets for security and opsec purposes all the time, my tokens - my votes, regardless of which private key they are on. I do agree with your overall point the number 1. i have no interest in having a voting advantage but the community needs to work past this. theres airdrops worth 100k every week now - its time to move past this testers vs non testers. we all want whats best for cvp. thats why we are here. I would vote FOR just 1. not the other stuff though.

1 Like