Idea: Additional financial incentive to get people to participate in governance voting

I vote consistently because I believe in having my say, and because I have skin in the game. Yet, my vote is minor–but just the fact that I voted makes me feel apart of this community. I also want Media Outlets to stop saying, well only 14 wallet addresses participated in the SF of blah blah blah. There are plenty of MKR and non-MKR holders that care about what we’re doing here with the guidance of the Maker Foundation, and some that oppose such–but still care and have passion for DAI/MKR. So all-in-all I really won’t change my voting habits based on incentives. Would I like to be rewarded 0.001 MKR per positive outcome, yes. Would I be okay with “Staking” my MKR to a respectful staking service bureau that has passion for MakerDAO? Yes. Here’s an interesting op-ed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/04/how-do-we-get-people-vote-lets-try-financial-incentives/

2 Likes

How about punishing everyone who doesn’t vote? Later that could be improved to punish also those who deviate very much from the final results.

There are many examples in real life where those who are inactive or lazy are punished by paying a bigger price, bigger tax, a fine…

1 Like

Notice in your example - the ‘people’ had to show up. Also it wasn’t 1 gold coin for 1 vote.

Two very distinct differences regarding ancient Athens and Token voting.

The very real problem here is so far no-one has proposed any means to connect the person to voting… Much less having such a proposal accepted by the community.

Someone else posted below that we could punish people not voting. I think any proposal regarding punishing MKR that doesn’t vote probably would be voted down. :wink:

I honestly can’t think of any reward system for voting that could not be gamed in some way for advantage by larger players.

What about paying interest for mkr tokens locked up in the voting contract.

When looking at other DAO projects/platforms it seems like a reputation system or lock up periods (or maybe a combination) is the way forward. However these approaches also appear to be very untested in practice so might take some time before an additional financial governance incentive could be implemented. Imho this should however be one of the features/improvements with the highest priority which doesn’t seem to be the case (I might be wrong on that however).

1 Like