then for OP of PUP: Using PUZZLE tokens:
PUP-1: Yes.
Just wondering how it works with rewarding Power governors: voted for the rescue proposal, which for me included to stake the PUZZLE as one of the utilities to do regardless. Voting for this PUP, would reward/punish twice? leading to double taxing? (example: WUP (Waves Usage Proposal) lease WAVES to node, no reason to vote no and I don’t think investors would be happy to be reward WAVES DAO for doing this)
Appreciate your patience🙏 DAO members, who haven't voted, have to share treasury loss with other DAO participants. At the same time, in the case of treasury profits, non-voted members haven't the opportunity to take profits with other DAO participants. Keep in mind, the WavesDAO KPIs are now only described in the protocol forum, as I've mentioned before. Can also tell you with confidence that the slashing mechanism in DAO hasn't been launched yet. This mechanism could be activated directly by MotherDAO voting I hope I have been helpful enough to answer your questions. Feel free to clarify whatever else you would like to know ☺️👌
wow, I hope this will not be implemented this way. I would expect no profit and no loss for non-voters. There is a reason to abstain voting, this doesn't have to be punished. Example: proposal lease the WAVES in the treasury. I am not going to vote NO, because this would lead me to always lose, since staking always earns income. This doesn't mean YES is the best vote, because there might be better opportunities. If you would implement it as stated, the example proposal would always have to be voted YES even when it's a suboptimal/bad vote. My 2 wavelets
The point is that in the case of a treasury loss, it would not be possible to isolate the deposited tokens into the DAO's treasury. If you are talking about committed $PWR tokens, the slashing mechanism is most likely to be handled separately for each proposal or DAO
then there should be a 3rd vote option: abstain
Hm🤔 Well, what options do you propose to assign to abstainers?
but abstain could also mean lazy/dead, and then you dont want them to just sit there do nothing
you have to actively vote: abstain
It makes sense. I should discuss your idea with my colleagues 😃
Why not increase the quorum to incentive passive participants to vote?
Increasing quorom is not an incentive
It's more practical than your idea, as the goal will not be achieved if no one votes🤷♂️
This just make it harder to reach quorom. It does not make extra people want to vote.
People committed to DAO should be initially interested in voting
They will not vote if they do not see a profit incentive.
That's true and healthy for DAO interests. But meanwhile, they can vote 'no' or be involved in voting to reach the quorum if the idea cost of DAO efforts
Slashing is a risk when voting. People will not vote just for voting sake. They will vote yes" if they see profit incentive, and vote "no" if they think proposal will lose money. If they do not know if either one is a good vote, they will not vote just to reach quorom.
Why did you commit your tokens if you skipped voting? Vote for 'no' if the proposal is meaningless
Why not? What concern is it of yours if I commit and then not vote? If you want me to vote, make incentive to do so. Making quorom harder to reach will not make me vote if I do not care to vote on a proposal in first place.
You can vote no if you think the proposal will fail. Your initiative is to gain more net value for the treasury
You are not listening at all, and I do not care to repeat myself. :))
It is about when a proposal is not good, but is profitable. Currently voting no or not voting would result in no gain, potential loss for such proposals. Example: proposal put all XTN in Vires lending for 0.10% APY, voting NO would result in slashing, but I don't want to vote YES, because I think there are better options. So abstaining is the preferred option.
Hello, Netherworld Art! Your words valid for DAOs aimed at earning. What about charitable DAOs?
I am poor, I can not afford to participate in charity when I can barely afford to buy food for myself. So I have not thought about this at all. :))
That sounds sad. Hopefully your situation will improve in the short term🙏
I will draw for money 😆
Consider my previous words as measures in complex, such as voters oriented only on profitable ideas and a higher quorum to prevent the passing of bad ideas. Also, I'm confused that you want to stay away due to a lack of initiatives after committing to for-profit DAO😐
You do not listen at all. If I do not know if a proposal is profitable or will lose money, then voting is a risk of slashing. If I vote yes and it is not profitable, I lose pwr. If I vote no, and it is profitable, I lose pwr. Voting just to make quorom is not something I will do.
Food Dao for Netherworld
Shame there is not much profit in this 😆
Charity may also be a DAO aim 😁
You are forgetting another alternative: just keep outside the governance and don't commit any PWR on the DAO. The idea behing PWR is also that only people with clear ideas for a specific DAO participate, otherwise this kind of governance looses part of the purpose. So, anyone that is afraid of voting because doesn't know how it affects the health of the DAO, shouldn't participate in governance. That is all.
Обсуждают сегодня