Rock the VOTE! Let's go Maker Community!

“We do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” – Thomas Jefferson

My Maker Community Family,

We are in the midst of writing history. One day communities of all walks-of-life will read & learn about the necessary steps, ideas, words spoken, words written, and the actions that were taken in order for this community to become a fully Decentralized Governance protocol. Your ANON name, or your birth name will appear in the history books on how to achieve and run a decentralized autonomous organization.

IMO, we cannot write history when we choose to not participate in Voting. As an example: why do we have 15 ETH addresses voting for adding Balancer as a Collateral Type, and only 8 ETH addresses acknowledging the Inclusion Poll for Declaration of Intent - Strategic reserves fund (MIP13c3-SP3)??

Please don’t tell me that it’s because of high Tx Fees–because as I write this on 10/14/2020, the average TX fee sits at 30GWEI. Please don’t tell me that the Balancer folks are coming over and out-voting the Maker Community. And please don’t tell me it’s because the WHALES will decide the outcome.

Please provide a better excuse. Because I don’t get it. How are we going to write the history books if you don’t Rock the Vote?

And I don’t care which way you Vote. Just Vote. Please. Let’s write history together.

“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life.”
― Steve Jobs

10 Likes

Rather that trying to motivate voters with rhetoric (even if what you wrote is objectively noble), what we need to do is seriously start to think how to incentivise good behaviour (voting) using the game-theoretical arguments/analysis that are at the basis of all other ingredients of MakerDAO.

Yes, I know the new Governance contracts are being developed right now, with delegations and all.

But for the future, we will not see serious voting engagement by the small MKR-holder until we find some good rewarding mechanism.

For “community member participation” the SourceCred initiative is an excellent step in the right direction. But that does not affect at all onchain-voting.

3 Likes

For sure. And it will be implemented in due time. For now, there is so much development and community building in Maker that it’s mind-boggling. From the introduction of new Modules, to Risk analysis, new ideas, funding (CDIP) for community projects, the Latin American Maker Community growing, and as you mention: SourceCred. It’s all happening here. Hence, we need to All participate and sail this ship in the right direction.

These are some very exciting times @iammeeoh

2 Likes

Totally! My point was just that in this community we should always try to be `scientific’, as in ‘scientific governance’, and try to address our issues with scientific/mathematical/game-theoretical/financial/etc ideas, rather than moral or ethics or wishful thinking.

This said, I totally agree with your post!

1 Like

Maybe for some users and other people the whole governance and voting system is kinda weird, or just don’t want to understand it, or simply they don’t want to sell their Dai (or other coins) for MKR and vote.

Have the governance or someone ever thought in a system like a flash mint vote? For example, a person have the value of MKR in DAI, and they go through the Flash mint vote system (just for putting a name), swap the DAI for MKR, add it to the voting system, and when it finishes the MKR returns to DAI again?

Maybe giving rewards if the vote they vote on wins (like paiyng the ETH used in that fee), because the community is involved IMO, the problem is with the vote as i see.

1 Like

In my view, we shouldn’t be voting on this to begin with. MKR holders should vote in a group of dedicated individuals that are empowered to formulate and execute a strategy for adding new collateral and deciding on its risk parameters. If people don’t like what they are doing they can vote them out. What you see now is a lot of collateral types that have been added with close to zero benefit to the protocol as many are barely used. In my opinion, coin votes are not a good way to run a complex decision process and will ultimately lead to bad outcomes.

We are already starting to see a more executive approach through the rates v2 poll that recently passed, delegated voting will probably increase participation, reduce the noice & speed up the process.

Something to note is that even though voting turnouts may seem slim signal request usually don’t have over 40 unique votes so even though some may argue tx costs or complexity to vote would be a barrier to entry it doesn’t seem to be as big as we may presume.

1 Like

This is the escense of DAI, so don’t think is bad for the protocol honestly.

Agree with this, delegating to someone if you don’t have enough MKR or if you just want to give power to someone you trust or thing going to make good decisions is a very good tool that we can use.

Another (this I was just thinking so I probably did not cover all the angles) way would be to “reward” a minimum quorum for voting subject to a vesting period. That way we incentivize people to vote and align incentives towards accruing mkr value through a minimum lock up time.

1 Like