@Adam_Skrodzki has suggested some interesting changes to how we use polls to create executive votes which are worth discussing in more detail.
With thanks to @psybull: when the MakerDAO governance polling system signals for some change, it does not automatically change the the system. Instead, the outcome from the poll is crafted into a proposal with a
spell , which is a contract deployed to the blockchain that, when
cast , will do the magic necessary to update the system (if it is chosen as the
hat using the Executive functionality).
Currently, each change begins life as a new poll. Adam’s suggestion is instead to have continuous polls for each parameter which do not expire. Instead of taking the result of each new poll, creating a spell based on it, and then submitting it to the
Chief so that it may become the
hat, we instead specify some predefined
timePeriod for each poll. If the poll reflects a result that is different to the current
hat at the end of any such period, then a new
spell is created and submitted to the Executive portal.
If the newly-created Executive Vote is not accepted and the current
hat is not replaced, then the next Executive Vote can be constructed based on next snapshot of polls results.
There is also the potential to include an actual quorum requirement in continuous polls done in this manner, which would, at least, lower the potential for controversy in any given vote. It is also more in line with the technical implementation of the protocol, which is “continuous” anyway, as described in psybull’s post linked above.
This may well be better from a UX perspective, as well as slightly decreasing the governance overhead. Instead of having to monitor the voting portal each week, catch up on calls and keep up-to-date with the forum, I can keep in my head the key factors (as represented by the polls running on vote.makerdao.com) and shift my position as new and relevant information becomes available.
It also means that it would be easier to create lasting and useful educational resources for each key parameter. It may mean the wider community could gain the ability to create polls (as people could potentially stake some DAI to create a poll for some parameter they feel is important. Evaluating the inclusion of some parameter is far more doable than vetting random polling submissions, and could be standardised to at least some extent.)
If that is not enough to convince you, it would also be easier to keep track of governance changes for each parameter, and do so in the same place as where the votes themselves take place - adding to the ease and educational value of the voting portal and killing many birds with one (continuous stream of) stone(s).
Oh, and it would likely be easier to automate a bit (not that that is a huge priority to anyone who doesn’t have their own economic interests in pointing to the current flaws in Maker’s system atm )
One last point: it would mean that it is much easier to distinguish technical/emergency changes from monetary policy (as the former could be instituted as once-off polls) which would be more noticeable to people if they were more used to just seeing continuously available options.
This would likely require a lot of dev work done on the polling section of vote.makerdao.com. I am not familiar with the backend details, so it’s difficult to estimate how many hours exactly. At the very least, it will mean giving the backend the ability to read what the current
hat is and acting upon it, which is nontrivial. It would definitely require testing, and I would estimate it in the weeks of good dev work for the entire flow to be built and tested properly.
However, given Nikolai’s post, overhauling the polling section in general should likely be bumped up that ‘priority list’, wherever it is.
- What are the current key parameters?
- SAI SF
- SAI DC
- DAI SF
- DSR Spread
- DAI DC
- Not exactly sure where things like the GSM belong in this kind of setup?
What is the best
timePeriodfor snapshots to be taken and turned into potential Executive Votes?
Probably a bunch of other things this noob doesn’t even know he doesn’t know. Like, for instance, the fact that there is a site at chief.makerdao.com and a good article by Nikolai which goes deeper into why the UI in total should be overhauled…