Hub Governance: We need to ship multiple-choice voting options

[m0therforker]

We urgently need voting options beyond the binary of Y/N(NWV). At present, all proposals are extreme referendums that limit preference expression and bargaining power of governance participants.

The current binary arrangement turns every funding request proposal into an ultimatum.

A multiple-choice option will also help reduce the divisiveness caused by the dichotomous nature of current governance. Binary choice discourages nuance and unnecessarily leads to emphasizing disagreement over consensus. We also need multiple-choice voting options to better reflect the nuances and preferences of public opinion.

A multiple-choice proposal option can also facilitate elections of special committees and committee members; an essential function of DAO governance.

[giunatale]

Personally, I think there are nuances to doing something like this that might make it harder than one could think initially.

• who sets the options?
• can we rely that the options provided initially are distributed on a fairly wide spectrum and aren't themselves unfairly biased?
• can someone add an option later? shouldn't options all be known in advance? maybe add them during the deposit period?
• what are practically these options? variations of the proposal?
• should these options be scoped to text and community pool spend proposals? do we really need multiple options for param updates? we definitely don't need multiple options for chain upgrades.

Also, while I understand the feel of urgency, I think that while this might be considered for future work, it should come after the roadmap discussed here. Unless someone is willing to take this on from a technical perspective, the AiB engineering team dedicated to the Decentralists initiative doesn't have the bandwidth at the moment. We could however - as I said - consider to add this to our roadmap, preferably after the details have been already figured out.

[m0therforker]

who sets the options?

The proposer sets the options. It would be incumbent on the proposer to share all possible 'options' via pre-proposal shared on forum.

can we rely that the options provided initially are distributed on a fairly wide spectrum and aren't themselves unfairly biased?

No. But neither is the binary offering especially in the form of funding requests to fund a given entity or person unbiased either. It is the job of deliberation and consideration in the community to assess the merit of the "spread"

can someone add an option later? shouldn't options all be known in advance? maybe add them during the deposit period?

I don't understand what you mean by adding options "later." All options should be shared on Cosmos Hub Forum for a minimum period of 14 days. Believe, that's what the proceduralists require before a proposal moves on-chain.

what are practically these options? variations of the proposal?

Handling variations on the proposal is more a secondary use-case of enabling multiple-choice voting. The primary use-case to enable multiple choice is to enable elections via direct democracy. There's much ado about accountability on the hub yada yada. There's no accountability on the hub. Most oversight measures are internal to teams, and diy/self regulatory. If we are to enable an independent oversight committee (as an example) at some point, a community vote will be required. How is such an election effected? There can be another application for multiple-choice with respect to the community authorizing/expressing preference for a team that pitches a proposal to e.g., perform ongoing work on hub maintenance.

should these options be scoped to text and community pool spend proposals? do we really need multiple options for param updates? we definitely don't need multiple options for chain upgrades.

I should have been more clear. I don't believe multiple choice is relevant for param updates -- yet. Should be initially scoped for text and funding requests.

[m0therforker]

Also, while I understand the feel of urgency, I think that while this might be considered for future work, it should come after the roadmap discussed here. Unless someone is willing to take this on from a technical perspective, the AiB engineering team dedicated to the Decentralists initiative doesn't have the bandwidth at the moment. We could however - as I said - consider to add this to our roadmap, preferably after the details have been already figured out.

In assessing the strategic initiatives outlined in your roadmap, one should consider the foundational principle that guides your proposed governance modifications. The pertinent question is not the legalistic sequence of your roadmap agenda items, but rather the essence of what you aim to accomplish through these changes. No? Is the objective not to achieve a more equitable and direct form of democracy within the governance structure?

It appears that each suggested amendment aims to address and curtail the concentration of governance power and to deter the pursuit of influence for the sake of (possibly) rent-seeking behaviors.

Decentralists' communications have not sufficiently penetrated the hub or the broader Cosmos community conversations. The lack of awareness regarding your 'roadmap' is a significant impediment to your objectives imo.

To immediately contribute substantive value to governance reform, it would be advantageous to allocate resources toward modifications that resonate with the community and hold immediate relevance and relatability. Introducing a multiple-choice mechanism for text-based proposals can elevate awareness of your objectives while you deliver value. 


It is remarkable that a binary referendum model has persisted for 4 years. Should the Decentralists not take action, likely another entity will see and seize the opportunity to yield social capital and "brand" equity. 
There's also confusion as to what the decentralists are, and wha real resources you can contribute given that Jae has canceled the hub in his public comms.

[giunatale]

The proposer sets the options. It would be incumbent on the proposer to share all possible 'options' via pre-proposal shared on forum.

And then what happens when the proposer(s) decide to ignore suggestions on the forum for edits/addition of other options? I don't think I need to make examples. You can't rely on the proposer for this. You either need oversight, or crowdsourcing of options, or imho options add complexity with practically minimal benefits: they would do nothing against polarization. Would have just more options and a situation where 50% picks an option and 50% picks No. Same divisiveness, more complexity.

No. But neither is the binary offering especially in the form of funding requests to fund a given entity or person unbiased either.

Yes or No is simple, options introduce complexity. If they are ineffective (or marginally effective) it's just more complexity with little benefits.

It is the job of deliberation and consideration in the community to assess the merit of the "spread" If options end up being all biased towards the same direction if you get what I mean, then the community would be split in half, the options would do nothing to the cause.

I don't understand what you mean by adding options "later." All options should be shared on Cosmos Hub Forum for a minimum period of 14 days. Believe, that's what the proceduralists require before a proposal moves on-chain.

Which can end up in a nothing burger as it happened in the past where suggestions for changes to pre-proposals under review weren't taken into consideration. Can't rely on off-chain procedures. They are meant to enhance not to complete. If something can be gamed, eventually it will be gamed.

My observation is that during the deposit period someone could add to the/a deposit (mechanism TBD) and be allowed to add an option. This could allow to gather options that are potentially more fair. Proposals can't be voted on until they fill the deposit and enter the voting period, so there is a time while they are on-chain but inactive. However it is true that right now proposals can be pushed to the voting period as soon as enough deposit is posted, so even immediately. But maybe this could be changed.

Handling variations on the proposal is more a secondary use-case of enabling multiple-choice voting. The primary use-case to enable multiple choice is to enable elections via direct democracy. There's much ado about accountability on the hub yada yada. There's no accountability on the hub. Most oversight measures are internal to teams, and diy/self regulatory. If we are to enable an independent oversight committee (as an example) at some point, a community vote will be required. How is such an election effected? There can be another application for multiple-choice with respect to the community authorizing/expressing preference for a team that pitches a proposal to e.g., perform ongoing work on hub maintenance.

Right, right. But you didn't answer my question. How does this work technically? Also, are options mutually exclusive? Except when voting candidates (expressing preference for individuals instead of picking between competing defined groups), I don't see any other case they shouldn't be. But then you would need to have 2 kinds of multi-options?

Variations of the proposals, when options are mutually exclusive, are for example how you would deal with funding props (different amounts) but variations to the proposal might also be proposing different committees (so you don't vote individuals)

Decentralists' communications have not sufficiently penetrated the hub or the broader Cosmos community conversations. The lack of awareness regarding your 'roadmap' is a significant impediment to your objectives imo.

You are not wrong, but all we want to do is keep moving forward. We have proposed our first change and we are close-ish to proposing our second. We want to keep developing these changes. I have faith that eventually the community will take us seriously.

To immediately contribute substantive value to governance reform, it would be advantageous to allocate resources toward modifications that resonate with the community and hold immediate relevance and relatability. Introducing a multiple-choice mechanism for text-based proposals can elevate awareness of your objectives while you deliver value. 


That's where we disagree I am afraid. We have defined our set of priorities, I personally don't see this as being more important than what we have in our roadmap. I don't want to discount this idea though. Perhaps after we are done with delegation-less voting at the latest, we can take a look at this. But our roadmap is a cohesive vision, where a good number of the proposed changes are best suited to work in tandem with each other. It's part of a cohesive vision. I am not of the idea this should hold more priority at the moment.

There's also confusion as to what the decentralists are,

I can't say that you are wrong. We haven't done the best job at communicating this. Let's say that for now it is an engineering team within AiB. It's ok IMHO to stay a bit low until we have a portfolio of features developed to back up our claims.

and what real resources you can contribute given that Jae has canceled the hub in his public comms.given that Jae has canceled the hub in his public comms.

The engineering team dedicated to this initiative is not big, so can't say we are moving as fast as one could hope, but you are wrong. Jae hasn't done anything like that. In fact, quite the opposite. We wouldn't be doing this work otherwise. From my point of view, Jae has embraced the need for doing political opposition. I didn't see him "cancel" the hub anywhere.

[m0therforker]

From my point of view, Jae has embraced the need for doing political opposition. I didn't see him "cancel" the hub anywhere.

Yes he did/does embrace political "opposition." But his more recent public comms contribute to the perception of disinterest. The invitations to fork the hub, and normalizing forking are heard that way. Perceptions inform expectations. Hope to see the modification to extend the voting period (when quorum is reached) on-chain. There should be broad support for that. Good luck with your roadmap.

[julienrbrt]

Before it slides to some political discussions here, I just wanted to say that Binary Builders will work on shipping multiple-choice voting and optimistic proposal in the next version of x/gov. We will have an ADR in the following weeks, so feel free to jump in with your thoughts, as you both have good points.

[giunatale]

Hey thank you @julienrbrt this is really nice to hear!

very curious to follow along!

[m0therforker]

Before it slides to some political discussions here, I just wanted to say that Binary Builders will work on shipping multiple-choice voting and optimistic proposal in the next version of x/gov. We will have an ADR in the following weeks, so feel free to jump in with your thoughts, as you both have good points.

Very cool. Can you expound a bit on what you mean by 'optimistic proposal?' Looking forward to the ADR. Thanks much @julienrbrt

[julienrbrt]

As promised, here is the ADR: https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/pull/18498. Feel free to join the discussion.