Streamline the gov process
I propose we use a system similar to Yearn’s to streamline our governance process and make it more quick and efficient. This would go as follows: Proposals posted on the forum would include a poll where atom holders can signal (no gas fee) how they feel (Yes, No) about them. These polls would be up for 3 days or maybe up to a week long. This would be the stage where they solicit feedback and fix up the proposal, if people think things need fixed or changed they will just vote no on the poll. Then op can fix the issues and they can repoll for a new, upgraded, proposal. Then, if it has a favorable result (majority voting yes, or greater than 51% with some % for minimum quorum for the poll), it would move to an on-chain vote. I suggest we shorten the on-chain voting period to a week as everyone should already know what the issues up for vote are and have discussed them earlier during the polling phase on the forums. I feel like this process would lead to more discussion and a clearer process than we have now in regards to when proposals are close to being submitted for on-chain votes and the publics sentiment about them. While this isn’t a formalized proposal I would like to…
Excerpt (1198 of 1761 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I think the two biggest changes I want as governance user is the ability to edit a proposal while resetting the vote state.
The second thing I’d really like is for fractional voting. This would enable exchanges and custodians to easily enable proxy voting schemes.
I would be in favor of faster voting schemes when we have subkeys.
The part of the difficulty of voting is that we have to access money moving keys with millions of dollars in assets on them.
zaki_iqlusion:I think the two biggest changes I want as governance user is the ability to edit a proposal while resetting the vote state.
Wouldn’t that basically be the same thing as submitting a new one?
Perhaps block explorers should support explicit “superseded by” metadata to point to the newer version.
The advantages of an edit/ cancel process would be that you can get you can instantly reuse the deposit.
Could this be used to perpetually keep a proposal live? To spam. Assuming bounds would be used to prevent that eg. two edits max
+1 on fractional voting.
This would help massively for potential use-cases of interchain accounts as well.
Editing an on-chain proposal sounds interesting, maybe have them pay half of the required atoms for deposit (200) to edit and restart the voting? I do think this could cause spam but maybe making it not cheap to do but having it as an mildly expensive option isn’t bad. Also I could see people abusing this if the vote isnt going their way? But I would be willing to test it out then if it got abused remove it or fix it somehow.
zaki_iqlusion:The second thing I’d really like is for fractional voting. This would enable exchanges and custodians to easily enable proxy voting schemes.
So this would let someone on binance say easily vote with their atoms wheres this is hard to do now? What do we need for this to happen? Are subkeys apart of cosmwasm?
zaki_iqlusion:The part of the difficulty of voting is that we have to access money moving keys with millions of dollars in assets on them.
Could we make vote only keys, I think they have some type of key separation on eos?