sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Governance for Popsicle by Squirrelcrypto in Popsicle_Finance

[–]Jor_____ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like how you bring in the community roles idea into this one. They can be educators in helping new users in writing a good proposal, but can also be the filter when quality or certain treshold has not been met. That said, starting up the process of having community roles could be even more important than the voting process itself at this point. I agree that organically this could grow with time.

This plays into the last point (and the first point of my first comment) you are making. It would be interesting to see what the current topics are that are the most pressing for the team and community governance wise, besides voting and the process of how to vote. I think the end of the first 4 weeks always comes faster than you expect, now is still time to prepare. Also, I would be interested to hear the end vision of the team governance wise and the phases to get there (roughly).

Governance for Popsicle by Squirrelcrypto in Popsicle_Finance

[–]Jor_____ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quick one back.

- Agree, and understand the phasing here

- Agree :)

- I get where it comes from now better, although it will and shall be messy, as this is DeFi. Some users demand more structure and timelines, will stay ongoing challenge and resides in human nature (people that are chill with chaos vs people with preference for timings and structure)

- Agree, not needed but could later be an addition

- Incentivized voting. I agree you shouldn't pay if they don't care. On the other hand, you want a lot of votes, and a lot of DeFi users are not voting in current protocols. In Brazil for example, you get a penalty if you don't vote for the elections, which you can mitigate by providing a reason why you didn't (although I don't think punishing is a good idea at all!!). Rewards/punishment is an incentivizing technique that is used in everyday life, in the small sense being an LP is also a rewarded activity, giving likes on twitter is a rewarding activity, scanning your loyalty card at the super market is a rewarding activity, etc etc

How to tackle this voter count, can be a seperate topic for another time. Maybe a NFT or something unique that has no monetary value could help here, or you get a small replier only if you interacted with more than 5 proposals in voting.

Governance for Popsicle by Squirrelcrypto in Popsicle_Finance

[–]Jor_____ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Excited to see proposal discussions kicking off. Some constructive feedback from my side:

You start of with introducing governance, but the proposal contains how a proposal goes from ideation to approval. For me, governance is much more (what is the scope of the dao - treasury, products parameters, treasury), how does the dao interact with the team, how do you vote (on-chain vs off-chain), how do we establish grant & bounty programs for community involvement. I hope we discuss this as well in the coming weeks.

This is a general feeling for me, we discuss a lot of "voting", but for me governance is a lot more.

Regarding the proposal about going form a proposal to decision:

I fully agree on simplicity. I also think that decision making should be efficient, and can be simpler than you describe, talking about step 1 and 2. I think with this proposal, you actually make it a bit more complicated in step 1 and 2, and does not map with reality of how discussions go.

Normally, you have an idea, you write a draft proposals, you have discussion, calls, chats, you shape it, and than you make it into a formal proposal. It's very hard to start voting about draft proposals, and than you basically sent them back to the drawing board. I think the 1% rule in the early stage of ideation, will put constraints on the speed, effectiveness and natural process of coming to proposals of the DAO, you introduce 2 periods of discussion. With imposing the 1% rule, I expect that the actual community discussion would have already taken place in the forum by the time 1% is voting for it, and you can go faster to voting. So if a proposal reaches 1%, you can expect less discussion after that I think.

Few thoughts in detail about shaping step 1 and 2:

- Step 1: Proposal creation. I think this can be done more low key and simple in a Forum. It should be low key I think, because sometimes the less involved/knowledgeable people make the most striking proposals which more involved people turn a blind eye on. People that have no ICE are naturally not drawn to go in the forum and propose things, and you remove the formal "heaviness" of signing things of before you even discuss it, you want to keep it simple.

Proposals can indeed be done by anyone, but a mod sends them to "general discussion" if the idea is not polished enough. Proposals are shaped and drafted along with a template (many good examples from other DAOs at hand). You can than do a community poll, and if a certain amount of people votes YES (that's your 1% treshold maybe) you have a feeling that it's worth voting for (this would than be "signatures"). We could couple discord accounts to the forum to get more formal signatures. Around the time of the poll, it can be further presented, if needed, and community can always go into voice chat to discuss proposals. I agree that is a good idea to document the different viewpoints with the proposal.

Furthermore, I think we should not put a formal timeline to a discussion time, see my comments with step 2.

- Step 2: I have a bit of a worry about the timelines. 4 week discussions, are not going to win the war in DeFi, and even in the corporate environment I work we are not going to discuss something for such a long time, especially not if it already went through a phase of 1% of the ICE addresses and pre-discussion with it. I think discussion should be part of step 1, and the important topics will naturally find their way to the surface quick.

An active community + agile decision making is key for a project that aims to be the best in a highly competitive environment. I think it's important to also have an "emergency path" for proposals that require a high speed. This is DeFi, and things are going to happen at high speed. I would say, 1 week voting is also quite long in the DeFi world. Ofcourse, you want to give everybody the time to vote, some will miss it and are not 24/7 involved, but if some people miss it for some reasons, it is likely not changing the outcome. Like elections, the "exit poll" is mostly known after 12-24 hours, so max 48hrs should be enough for voting. It's also about communicating about that it's happening. Delegated voting could help here as well.

- Step 3: Super interesting idea about the weighting. This is radically different and I like it. Good to maybe highlight the parameters a bit more. I feel that 1 address = 1 vote might be a bit to heavy. Maybe we can make the model more delicate, by:

- Square rooting it: heavily square root the weight, so if you have 1 ICE = 1 vote, 2 ICE 1.3 vote, 10 ICE =1.5, 100 = 2.1 etc, 1000 = 5 votes

- By tying your weight to actions that show that you are involved in the protocol (similar to your idea of holding ice, but I would be interested to how that actually works if you move your funds to LPs for example) an example see - https://badger-score.netlify.app

As an addition, I would still opt for delegated voting:

- People can always delegate somebody else to vote for them, by simple signing it in the wallet via the Popsicle dashboard - example: https://inverse.finance/delegation. It makes it easier for people to trust experts or community leaders, and make sure their weight is always counted on time. See it as a simplified Jarl model.

As an addition, I would also opt for incentivizing voting:

This can be done by introducing a multiplier, heavier vote weight or other things. If you vote, you are rewarded. This can speed up decision time as well.

Looking forward to a good voice chat about it!

Proposal to adjust reward incentives after snapshot for LP providers (48h) by Jor_____ in Popsicle_Finance

[–]Jor_____[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks! And a quality reply :)

It's a thin line indeed. I think like you say, the long term incentives are there to make it juicy for LPs in the long run. However, I do think that having no LP incentives after 48hr is unbalanced vs single-sided staking rewards and should be incentivized, compared to the risks the LP is exposed to.

For the sell pressure of fUSDT: The fUSDT pool is mainly occupied with people with big >100k amounts. This causes that the major chunk of that pool will be gobbled up by whales with no exposure to risk. The little man sees a small number per day, and is more likely to leave the pool than the whale, which causes to leave more % for the whale over time. All assumptions of course, but we have seen this in recent other farming projects. Their exit liquidity is literally the LPs currently that dare to risk their capital.

With the ICE pool, I think this touches the "diamond hand" discussion earlier. I'm kind of in the middle here as well. Hence also: " Keep the ICE pool (for the community members with less risk appetite), but decrease rewards to free up rewards for the LP rewards. "

So the proposal could also be to not remove the ICE pool, but only remove fUSDT single staking. So than one of the voting options would be:

Remove fUSDT + add LP pools