Incentives for Governance voting

Hello.

Ideally we need educated voting.

Unlock voting in a specific topic by reading and passing a small exam.
Less technical votes accessible from the get-to.

Create video-classroom for teachers that can educate voters, help them better understand the implications of different aspects.

I understand this one sounds ludicrous. There can be many details to this. As time goes on many projects have expanded into ‘‘research’’ which ties back to education. Start small and build up, as usually.

Am I jumping too much in the future? Sorry if I am. (:

EDIT: With that I wanted to say that I support ‘‘Incentives for Governance voting’’ .

In a way when you are involved in a DAO and you participate to votes, you are already rewarded.

In a way you vote for something in your interest or in the interest of the protocol. So long term also in your interested.

And you don’t want people voting just for rewards, a vote should be a thoughtful decision. And not a click on a random button.

3 Likes

Voted, good proposal :star_struck:

代表中国团队来支持你,我在中国宣传带领团队投票

Is there a help page for voting, that explains how the process works? I’m willing to be more adamant in the procedure, if I understood more about it. Does it cost any badger from my wallet to participate in the voting process? Is it locked while the vote is being commenced? I kinda feel dumb for asking this, but I just don’t know.

The page for voting is called Snapshot, you can find it here

Voting for proposals has no cost (no gas) and your voting weight will be based on the amount of badger you have. All of the Badger setts are accounted for in determining your voting power.

No locking of tokens whatsoever, you just vote and thats it.

1 Like

Oh, right on. Thanks for the reply. I’ll start doing my part and placing my votes.

2 Likes

As an aside…

One benefit of voting is that it might be a criteria of airdrops for other platforms. Get involved!

2 Likes

I think there would be no harm having a third option on votes for “not sure” then everyone can be encouraged to participate without leading the project in a direction , ie… You can always turn up to vote, not every proposal will make sense to everyone.

1 Like

There have been lots of snapshot votes lately and some members of the community are voting, but not enough to be a truly decentralized DAO. I think we really need to incentive voting.

A healthy first step would be for x% of $CLAWS or any other drop to go to those vote have previously voted.

Another good option is similar to balancer and have a govFactor for a slight APY boost.

Please consider Badger team!

1 Like

It’s unlikely that CLAW will be an airdrop, you can read about it here…

I haven’t looked in on Balancer since they applied the govFactor, is there any data available to see if it has made a noticeable impact on voter turn out?

NFT Opinion solicitation

I asked in Balancer governance channel and they said it had a pretty good effect. They said after gov factor was introduced the amount of bal in votes increased ~ 10x. I think maybe we should put it up for discussion in a separate post. We could probably just copy what bal has done.

3 Likes

If something like this were to be implemented, I suppose that one option would be to have the reward for voting be based on a random BIP vote, to be determined at the end of the year, if that makes sense. At the beginning of the year, it would be announced that at then end of the year, participation in one of the votes will be selected at random for participation rewards. That way, people know, and it makes gaming the system more difficult.

1 Like

Perhaps quarterly would be more appropriate, you offer a good point here.

Another post may be what we need. The concept of incentivizing votes is starting to fall into a greater community rewards idea. I’ve been having multiple conversations regarding an overall method but we have certain unknowns like ‘levels’ that spada has spoken about.

I have been reading and following this thread but have been holding off my comments.

I agree that it would be very healthy for the DAO to get more people engaging and participating in governance. I would love to see that - community participation and engagement is fundamental.

Sadly though, it is a fact that a lot of people just don’t participate in DAOs. Probably because the concept is still fairly new. It might be because they hold governance tokens for other reasons (value appreciation) and they don’t care about governance. Or because they think that it is not worth it since they have so little voting power and their participation will not make any difference.

I don’t really think that a reward system would change that at core, but we can certainly try.

It can be very simple and here is my proposal:

Community members that vote in more than 66% of the snapshots during a year, will earn a POAP badge that they could claim. All wallets that hold that POAP get a small Badger Boost on your deposits on the DAO (% to be defined - this needs to fit in with the overall economics).

If you don’t like POAP (I think it is the simplest and more adequate for this purpose), then it could be a special NFT on MEME. Of course the risk with this is that people just start buying or selling them, and then the whole point (to increae engagement and participation in governance) gets lost. Not sure if there is a way to make them non transferrable.

4 Likes

I’m fine for trying this way. I think it could work but it might be easier to just fork Balancers code for the way they do it. They look at every wallet after a snapshot vote and if it voted they get a 10% boost in apy in rewards until next snapshot. You don’t have to change emissions because they get that boost at the expense of wallets that don’t vote. One problem I see with your idea is that people wouldn’t get poap until a whole year has passed and many may not participate since they are not sure if they will still be here. See their proposal here. Snapshot

That is true, my idea has that problem. Thank you for pointing it out. Sometimes I tend to think longer term and my intention was to reward regular voters, not ocasional ones that got a boost for that week.

But if the Balancer implementation has worked so well and has increased voting by 10x in a consistent way, that is something we can definitely look at.