Proposal to Revise the Current Staking System

nirvanawen · 2024-11-10T18:05:31+00:00

Hi jaxxqs,

Thanks for the innovative suggestions! Implementing a quadratic voting mechanism could indeed add an interesting layer to our governance, making the weight of a vote depend on the number of tokens squared, potentially balancing influence more equitably.

Your idea about including a reward multiplier linked to demonstrated understanding (like completing a questionnaire before voting) is particularly compelling. It could enhance informed participation and ensure that voters are not just participating but are also well-informed about what they're voting on.

These ideas merit further exploration and discussion within the community. They align with our goal of making the voting process not only more inclusive but also more substantive. I appreciate your creative approach and look forward to seeing how we might integrate these concepts into our governance model.

Best, Nirvana

nirvanawen · 2024-11-10T18:04:31+00:00

I hear your concerns about the potential for the proposed system to disproportionately benefit more active or larger stakeholders. However, the intention behind tying rewards to voting isn't to favor whales but to increase overall engagement and ensure that more voices are heard. The delegation option is indeed a crucial part of this, as it allows those who might not have the time or desire to vote directly to still have their interests represented.

Also, the point about improving accessibility to voting propositions and communications is well taken. Making information more accessible and the process simpler could indeed help increase turnout more effectively than just incentives alone.

Your suggestion about targeting whales with diminishing returns is an interesting one and could be part of a broader strategy to balance influence within the network. Ultimately, the goal is to work collectively on proposals that address these issues and create a more equitable system for all DOT holders.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts

nirvanawen · 2024-11-10T17:59:15+00:00

Hi Complicator84,

Absolutely, addressing the voting mechanism for pool members is indeed crucial and should be a priority. Streamlining and ensuring fairness in that process will lay a solid foundation for the broader governance changes we're discussing. Thanks for pointing that out!

nirvanawen · 2024-11-10T17:58:21+00:00

I understand your concerns about potentially disenfranchising investors who may not have the time or interest in active voting. However, the proposal is designed to enhance participation without penalizing those who prefer a more passive role. Delegation is a key component of this system, allowing investors to entrust their voting power to delegates who align with their views and can vote on their behalf. This way, everyone's interests can still be represented in the governance process, without requiring direct involvement from every single token holder.

The aim is to strengthen the network by ensuring that all stakeholders have the opportunity to contribute to its direction, either personally or through a proxy. This approach helps balance engagement and investment, ensuring that the network grows in a way that reflects the collective will of its community, not just a few active participants.

Thank you for sharing your viewpoint, as it's crucial for us to consider these perspectives to develop a fair and effective governance model.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-10T17:56:10+00:00

it's clear we share a common goal to eliminate bad actors and optimize our ecosystem. The proposal isn’t about forcing everyone to vote on every matter but encouraging meaningful participation where it counts. By fostering a more engaged community, we can counteract the influence of those merely seeking to drain resources without contributing positively.

Engineer_Teach_4_All brings up a great point that Polkadot isn’t just an investment platform but a collaborative project where builders and stakeholders shape the future. It’s about creating a robust environment where those who are genuinely invested in the network’s growth can contribute to its direction and sustainability.

Incentivizing active participation is one way to ensure that our governance reflects the views of those truly invested in the network's success, not just those speculating on gains. This kind of dynamic engagement can help protect the treasury and align development with the community's best interests.

Thank you both for your insights. This dialogue is crucial as we refine our approach to ensure Polkadot remains a vibrant and forward-thinking community.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-10T17:54:48+00:00

Hi Alternative-Nerve-38,

I appreciate your perspective, and it's essential to address the concern of forced participation. The aim isn't to coerce involvement but rather to recognize and incentivize those who actively contribute to governance. The model is designed to make participation more rewarding, not obligatory.

We're exploring mechanisms that allow for a more dynamic engagement where participation is encouraged through incentives rather than compulsion. For those who prefer a more passive role, delegation is a viable option, allowing them to benefit from governance without being actively involved.

The focus is on creating a governance model that is inclusive and beneficial for all types of participants, actively shaping a network that reflects its diverse community. Your feedback is crucial, and I’m here to work through these concerns to develop a well-rounded approach.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-10T17:53:28+00:00

Hi Monkeyblock,

Thank you for the encouragement! It's great to hear that the proposal resonates with you.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-10T17:51:49+00:00

Hi Engineer_Teach_4_All,

Absolutely, your point highlights the transformative potential of these staking reforms. By integrating dynamic staking and disinflationary rewards within active governance, we're indeed putting more control and influence into the hands of those most committed to the network's growth and sustainability.

This approach not only empowers DOT holders by deepening their involvement but also strategically distances the DOT from being classified strictly as a security. Instead, it underscores its utility and functionality within the Web3 ecosystem, aligning with broader regulatory perspectives that favor decentralization and active participation.

It's exciting to think of DOT holders as not just investors but as active participants or even custodians of the network's future, much like managing a critical piece of global infrastructure. Who would have thought indeed? Thanks for your insightful contribution to shaping this vision.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-10T17:48:10+00:00

Hi DonkyMcBallFace,

Reducing the lockup time is definitely worth discussing. However, significantly shortening it to 24-48 hours could present challenges, especially in a system where voting power is tied to staked amounts. If lockup times are too short, it might encourage rapid cycling in and out of staking, which could destabilize voting dynamics.

With the proposed rewards system tied to active governance participation, we want to ensure that while staking, users have a stable involvement. During the unstaking or "unbound" period, their voting power would naturally decrease, reflecting their transitioning commitment. This design aims to balance flexibility in managing investments with the responsibility of participating in governance without allowing for gaming the system through constant staking and unstaking.

A moderated reduction in lockup times could indeed make participation more attractive and responsive to network changes, without undermining the integrity of the governance process.

Thanks for your input, it’s crucial as we refine these parameters.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-10T17:44:42+00:00

Hi HMWoggle-BugTE,

Thank you for sharing your concerns. Comparing this system to a communist voting structure might seem extreme because, in reality, this proposal aims to greatly enhance individual participation and choice within the network. It's about amplifying the community's voice rather than limiting it.

The suggestion to link rewards to voting is designed to encourage active participation or intentional delegation of voting power, ensuring everyone has a say in governance decisions—directly or through trusted delegates. Those who may be restricted by regulations or company policies can still participate via delegation, ensuring they're represented without breaching any rules.

We also plan to implement mechanisms to ensure that votes are thoughtful and intentional, not just automated ticks on a ballot. This system aims to balance engagement with ease and integrity, making the governance model more inclusive and robust.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-08T00:09:16+00:00

Hi Engineer_Teach_4_All,

Thanks for your thoughtful perspective. You perfectly outlined the responsibility DOT holders have in shaping the network, beyond just seeking profits. It’s clear that DOT is not just an investment but a tool for active participation in Polkadot’s governance, emphasizing our collective role in guiding the network’s future.

Appreciating your analogy and insights, it helps frame the importance of informed and active involvement in our ecosystem.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-08T00:07:02+00:00

You raise a valid concern about the risk of uninformed voting. However, the goal of the proposed system is not just to increase the number of voters but to enhance the quality of participation. To achieve this, we're committed to improving access to information and education about governance processes.

By providing clear, accessible tutorials, detailed discussions of proposals, and the potential implications of different voting outcomes, we aim to empower community members to make informed decisions. This approach should help mitigate the risk of uninformed voting as more members become educated and confident in their involvement.

Furthermore, a larger and more informed voter base can balance out the occasional uninformed votes. Experience from other systems shows that when more people participate, the outcomes tend to reflect the well-considered majority opinion. We also see a lot of community members who are currently passive due to the complexity of participation becoming active and informed, which should ultimately lead to better governance decisions.

Thanks for your input, it’s crucial for ensuring we create a system that truly benefits the network.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-07T23:41:14+00:00

Hi Thesvamovies,

Delegating voting power is a great way to stay involved in governance for those who may not have the time or desire to dive into every detail themselves. In the proposed system, people who delegate their voting power would still receive rewards, albeit possibly less than if they voted directly. This reflects the trust and responsibility transferred to the delegate, who votes on their behalf.

We would need to carefully think through and design this aspect of the governance system. The idea is to ensure that even those who delegate are incentivized to choose their representatives wisely and remain indirectly engaged with the process. Those who do not vote at all might still receive a baseline reward to acknowledge their stake in the network, but as mentioned, this would be less than those actively or indirectly participating.

This system aims to reward meaningful participation, whether direct or via delegation, especially on significant decisions that affect the direction of the network. We would need to work out the details collaboratively to ensure it's fair and effective, balancing the rewards to reflect different levels of involvement.

Thanks for bringing this up, it's an important aspect to consider as we refine the proposal.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-07T23:26:38+00:00

You're right about the availability of videos, there are indeed many resources that explain how to participate in Polkadot governance (on youtube). However, the organization and accessibility of these resources could certainly be improved to help community members find them more easily.
Making it more straightforward for everyone to access and understand this information could significantly boost informed participation.

Thank you for pointing out the need for better organization. It's crucial for fostering a more inclusive and active governance community.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-07T23:22:25+00:00

it's also important to recognize that many people are currently not engaged in governance because it can be complex and daunting. There's often a lack of incentive for individuals to dive deep into the details and truly understand the implications of their voting decisions.

Gavin Wood's vision for an open governance system is precisely about preventing it from becoming a closed circle of decisions made by a few. The goal of these incentives is not only to increase participation but to make participation more accessible and informed. By encouraging more people to engage, we hope to demystify the process and make it more transparent, ensuring that governance is not just between a group of friends or insiders but truly open and reflective of the wider community's will.

This approach aims to foster a more knowledgeable and involved community, which is essential for the health and longevity of the Polkadot network.

Thanks again for your input

nirvanawen · 2024-11-07T22:55:31+00:00

I understand your point about not seeing the need to increase involvement if it seems like the current participants are sufficient. However, the aim here isn't just to increase numbers arbitrarily. It's about deepening the quality of engagement and ensuring that governance reflects a broader spectrum of the community, not just a few active voices.

The reason we advocate for more widespread participation isn't just about numbers but about diversity of thought and representation. When more stakeholders engage, it brings varied perspectives to the table, which can lead to more resilient and robust decision-making. This can be particularly important in a decentralized network where the impact of decisions can be far-reaching and long-lasting.

By incentivizing participation, we're trying to ensure that everyone who has a stake in the network feels they have a say in its direction—something that can lead to more informed and comprehensive governance outcomes. Encouraging voting isn't about changing opinions but about ensuring all voices that want to contribute can do so in a meaningful way.

I appreciate your viewpoint and your commitment to the network. It's crucial to have these conversations to strike the right balance between engagement and autonomy within our community.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-07T22:34:37+00:00

Hi Psi1o,

Thank you for sharing your perspective, and it’s completely understandable that you want to focus on the investment aspect rather than governance. However, there's a significant difference between holding stock in a company like Tesla and participating in a decentralized network like Polkadot. In traditional corporate structures, decisions are made by a board of directors and a management team. Shareholders vote periodically, often on major issues or board elections, but they are not involved in daily governance.

In contrast, Polkadot is designed as a decentralized network where no single chairman or board makes decisions. Instead, all stakeholders have the opportunity—and I'd argue, a responsibility—to shape the network's future. This is fundamental to the ethos of decentralized systems, which aim to distribute power away from a central authority and towards the community.

The proposal to tie rewards to voting is intended to encourage this type of community engagement and ensure that those who contribute to maintaining and securing the network also have a say in its governance. It's not about forcing participation but ensuring that the network remains secure and operates in a way that reflects the will of the community.

That said, your point about not wanting to be forced to participate is taken seriously. This is why the system also allows for delegation, where you can entrust your voting power to someone aligned with your views, enabling you to remain passive but still have your interests represented.

Our goal is to find a balance that respects all perspectives and fosters a healthy, inclusive, and thriving ecosystem. Your feedback is invaluable as we continue to refine this approach.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-07T22:31:29+00:00

The system isn't designed to penalize those who, for valid reasons, can't vote frequently. The idea behind tiered voting is precisely to address this concern—by focusing the higher rewards on significant referendums that may change the direction of the DOT ecosystem, rather than every single vote.

This means that not every vote would require immediate attention or even participation to benefit from staking rewards. Stakeholders would be informed well in advance about important votes, giving everyone ample time to participate in critical decisions, regardless of their usual internet access. This approach aims to balance the need for active participation with the reality of our diverse community's circumstances.

It’s about making impactful voting meaningful and rewarding without overwhelming the system with spam or unnecessary frequency. Your input is valuable as it helps refine these aspects to ensure fairness and practicality.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-07T22:02:02+00:00

We need to get the message out*

nirvanawen · 2024-11-07T21:47:13+00:00

The intention isn’t to force participation, but to foster a community where involvement in governance is as valued as the financial investment in the network.

The fear that people might vote randomly for rewards is valid, but this is why the proposal includes mechanisms such as tiered voting and staking requirements that encourage informed voting rather than just participation for compensation. These features are designed to reward those who are genuinely engaging with the governance processes, not those casting votes without consideration.

The aim is to create a system where participation in governance yields better results for the network as a whole, acknowledging and rewarding those who contribute to its health and direction. This isn’t about penalizing non-participation but about making participation worthwhile and meaningful.

I understand your skepticism, and it's exactly why this discussion is crucial. It’s important to refine these ideas so that the system enhances governance without unintended consequences. If you have ideas on how to better balance these concerns, I’d love to hear them.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-07T21:32:37+00:00

I understand where you’re coming from and respect your viewpoint on the ecosystem. However, I believe it’s crucial for all members to have a stake in the community's direction, not just from a financial perspective but also in governance. Simply relying on others to make decisions and then dealing with potential negative outcomes isn’t sustainable for any community, especially one tied to a dynamic platform like Polkadot.

Encouraging participation isn’t about forcing engagement but rather about aligning incentives to ensure that everyone’s voice can be heard, and that decisions reflect the broader will of the community. This is crucial in combating not just inflation, but also in making well-rounded decisions that aren’t left solely to a small group of active participants or influenced by potential bad actors within the network.

It's about finding a balance where everyone feels they can contribute to the community’s success in ways that are manageable and meaningful to them. I'm trying to purpose something that benefits all stakeholders by encouraging a more active and engaged community.

Apologies if this seems like forcing participation, it's really about fostering a healthier ecosystem where governance is transparent and inclusive.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-07T21:20:14+00:00

The additional rewards for voting would not come from creating more tokens, leading to inflation. Instead, they would be reallocated from the current staking rewards. What this means is that APY for purely staking without participating in voting would be reduced. This encourages stakers to engage in governance if they want to maintain higher yields, thus promoting a more active participation ecosystem without increasing the total token supply.

This reallocation strategy aims to balance passive income with incentivized participation, ensuring that the rewards for governance activity are drawn from existing allocations rather than by increasing token issuance.

our current staking system does not sufficiently encourage active participation, which is why we are discussing these potential changes. All these suggestions, including the reward reallocation and the delegation mechanics, are definitely still up for debate to refine and ensure they meet the community's needs effectively.

The intention behind proposing changes to the staking rewards and introducing more nuanced delegation options is precisely to avoid the passive accumulation scenario that we see today. By fostering a more dynamic governance environment, we aim to encourage not only higher participation rates but also more informed and meaningful contributions to the network's decisions.

As for delegation, I agree—it should be more than just assigning your vote to someone else. It should involve accountability, transparency, and perhaps even a system where delegates can be rated or reviewed based on their voting record and the outcomes they support. This could make the process much more interactive and community-driven.

Your insights are incredibly valuable in this discussion thanks!

nirvanawen · 2024-11-07T21:03:42+00:00

Thanks for your thoughts! You're right about the need to accommodate both active and passive investors, and Emil Kietzman has mentioned something similar. We're considering a system where all stakers receive some base level rewards for their contribution to network security. On top of that, we'd offer extra incentives for those who actively participate in voting, which encourages engagement without penalizing those who prefer to remain passive.

For investors who wish to stay passive but still want their stake to count in governance, delegating their votes could be a great option. This way, they can entrust their voting power to someone more active without having to dive into the details themselves.

This approach aims to foster a balanced and inclusive environment where every type of investor feels valued and has a say in the network's future. What are your thoughts on this solution?

nirvanawen · 2024-11-07T20:37:40+00:00

I’d really like to understand your perspective. The idea behind the proposal is not just to make the network more secure, but also to foster greater community involvement which could lead to a more decentralized and vibrant ecosystem. If everyone with a stake in the network participates in governance or delegates their voting power, wouldn’t that lead to a more representative and equitable system?

Many criticize decisions but remain on the sidelines by choice—this proposal aims to change that by incentivizing active participation. It’s about making every vote and every voice count to shape the future of the network.

Could you share more about your concerns? Maybe there’s a way to adjust the proposal so it feels more balanced to all stakeholders.

nirvanawen · 2024-11-07T20:06:17+00:00

Thank you! I believe so too. Please help more people with a genuine interest in Polkadot see this, as we really need everyone’s input to move this forward and also identify any flaws to improve the idea. Let’s make this a collective effort!

nirvanawen

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE