Just want to say I also like the idea of vote delegation and the formation of philosophical “parties” that individual voters align with. I don’t know how difficult it would be to do this but maybe it would even be possible to do ranked choice delegation? A voter could lock up their mkr in a contract with a ranked list of delegations, then those preferences are used on all future votes unless the voter alters their preferences.
This would avoid issues we see where political parties are forced into a 2 party system which could happen with single preference delegating even if the actual votes are ranked choice.
At the moment our governance is probably not sufficiently complex that they’re would be many “parties” but I’m just brainstorming here.
So glad to hear on this thank you @Derek I can’t wait to see the mock ups.
I know vote delegation has been on the minds of the foundation folks. @rune I think talked about it a lot but I might be thinking of someone else.
I looked up here previous threads with “Vote delegat” and came up with:
So we have been down some of these roads before.
When I think about community engagement I don’t just think about MKR but also about Vaults and DAI holders. I had this idea about doing surveys. Businesses do this. Sometimes they will do it for free otherwise they wlll offer a coupon or some other kind of reward that makes sense for the part of their client base they are trying to incentivize for something. DIgesting the sourceCRED stuff
I think we can do some really interesting stuff with audience engagement in connection with wallet signatures and on-chain tx’s rolled up in terms of providing rewards for various kinds of engagement that the community can manage to minimize gaming and maximize engagement return.
What we really don’t have is a way to take and connect the on-chain actions into a kind of sourceCRED system but that literally is what we are talking about I think.
I am back to questions I know I asked in the older threads that we did poll on somewhat.
What is the goal?
How to measure achievement of that goal?
I am hopeful after this sourceCRED trial we get an interesting perspective of how to redo community engagement using some new tools and on-chain recording. Changing the mechanics of what we do on chain so we can roll up lots of actions into a single on-chain tx would be way cool. Using these techniques and UIs to engage MKR holders that say have MKR in the governance contract vs. MKR in the wild and vault owners that actually borrow and hold DAI debt vs. ones that just deposit and DAI holders who either have cDAI (some other version of DAI) vs. DAI proper or CHAI etc. I think would be a very interesting way to gather feed back and engage the entire community in ways that would be very valuable.
I have not even mentioned an idea I had until now about engaging vault owners wiped out after this whole compensation thing is done to ask them if they would come back to Maker, are they totally turned off. Or better questions of vault or DAI holders. Are they more or less likely to use Maker now that centralized coins are being added as collateral against DAI, etc.
I am excited in many ways by what we are doing and building, but daunted because the task seems so large. I have large plans but want to take the best measured and achievable steps towards achieving them.
So I have a 3rd question here.
What is the low hanging fruit we need to clear that we can grab easily?
I think making a more efficient, cheaper, easier to use polling or surveying system is probably good low hanging fruit we can pick.
Maybe keep improving polling/surveying analytics, analysis. Maybe not low hanging fruit because it will be a moving target. Already we broke some of our analytics with changes to ranked choice voting (which I am all for). But it means we need to provide means to keep up on this stuff. Is this low hanging fruit?
I’d like to engage more of the community in terms of people but feel like we are stuck with wallets. I also don’t really know what I want in terms of a success measure for community engagement. This really doesn’t feel like low hanging fruit, but it feels like something we want to grab when we can.
I have more generally on this topic but this post is already too long…
This is great! Not sure if you’ve thought of this already, but the most common vote right now seems to be yes/no votes. Rolling up into one tx is great, but I see a lot of waste in using a uint256 to store a binary yes/no. We could roll a batch of weekly yes/no votes into one “vote” and provide yes/no/abstain on each option using 3 bits per option. This should reduce gas costs down to the same as a single vote. Alternatively the width of the option could be reduced for the yes/no votes to a single bit to reduce all that wasted storage.
How do you know when to vote? I might vote more often if I get a message about the topic, but I can’t see myself always following forums and refreshing the governance page.
Is there a “push” solution to notifying holders when to vote? Maybe build some incentives around this.
I was not previously aware of this thread, but I’d also like to raise awareness that there’s a significant amount of MKR holders that have their coins locked in DeFi. Theoretically MKR could use oracles to determine the # of tokens owned, we’d just need some way to onboard the DeFi tokens for voting purposes.