search

atomone-hub / govgen-proposals

GovGen-dedicated repo to discuss upcoming governance proposals
5 stars 5 forks source link

ATONE distribution proposal 001 #2

Closed jaekwon closed 7 months ago

JoveCosmos commented 8 months ago

(a) the NWV nominal bonus, if any, and (b) non-voters get a slight penalty, if any.

b) Participation must be appreciated/encouraged (voters vs non-voters) a) NWV counts as No but also adds a veto vote. which, on + 1/3, can overturn yes superior to 1/2. I think in the case of 848 (compromised core principle), that led to the need and birth of AtomOne (securing minimal/original hub), NWV should have an extra weight as compared to No. Very much, based on similar grounds, where the 848 opposers are defined as the more-intelligent voting bloc in atomone-hub genesis.

giunatale commented 8 months ago

please have a look at #5 for anyone that commented or is interested. The proposal is outlined in more detail there.

Victor2086 commented 8 months ago

We should completely exclude "Yes" voters from the Atom One distribution since they indicated their fundamental disagreement with the Atom One constitution which embodies our original vision and principles for Cosmos. I don’t see it as punitive but rather about ensuring that the core values and security principles of Atom One are upheld and also considering the long-term implications of governance decisions from those that fundamentally disagree with our core values. All It takes is 1 engineer who believes it is okay to use cheap materials for airplane door plugs to destroy the reputation of the airline even if the rest of the airplane components built by other teams are of high quality (just ask Boeing).

giunatale commented 8 months ago

if you see issue 12 on the AtomOne-hub/genesis repo, we ended up discussing this in depth and although I initially was thinking more similar to you, I convinced myself we should not exclude anyone.

As we are creating a larger supply for $atone with respect to $atom, the yes voters will see their voting power tremendously reduced (through dilution) because they get 1x, while if you voted no or nwv you get 4x, and as a consequence non voters almost get 2x (see details in #5)

The "punishment" is there, is just not in plain sight if you don't look at it a bit more cautiously. There were many that either did not vote or voted yes that manifested change of ideas or regret so not excluding them seem the more fair approach. It's still a punishment in the context of the $ATONE distribution as they will get diluted through the various multipliers for other cathegories, but at least they can - if they want - have a little stake in the network. And should they decide to rid of their $ATONE that is fine too, because it meant they didn't want a stake in the network and is better to have them go.

Given the much reduced voting power, and the fact that likely prominent yes votes will sell all their $ATONE as soon a they get it, the impact that they can have on the chain is in my opinion nothing to necessarily worry about.

We don't have to exclude anyone, we just have to make sure the voting power (in this case I am referring to the governance voting power) is more intelligently distributed such that the governance process can go more smoothly. It's ok if there is a dissenting minority, it's actually probably a good thing.

Victor2086 commented 8 months ago

Thanks Guisseppe!! I will review that thread. I also think that No and NWV should have an equal distribution since in actual practice (irrespective to how people think the NWV should be defined), for Prop 848, the No voters were indeed just as strongly as opposed as NWV. NWV in practice has been seen as a tool to prevent spam proposals not to indicate strong disagreement. Since Prop 848 was not a spam proposal (and quite the opposite, it was a pretty serious one), there was no reason to vote NWV which is why most people strongly opposed voted No, if you look at the vote tallies. Hence, why they should be treated equally.

The demarcation in practice between those that strongly supported vs. those that didn't strongly support is actually between the No/NWV and those that Abstained. This is why I believe the distribution should be along the lines of No/NWV getting 4x, Abstain/no vote getting 2x and Yes votes gettting 1x (although, I am not fully convinced of the Yes's yet). I also think that in order to get the 2x, Abstain/No Vote should indicate interest via signing a transaction/claiming (as their position might have changed since Prop 848 passed) and the signing/claiming would at least indicate an active interest in learning more about AtomOne.