If we do a quorum, we could do a shorter vote duration than 5 days.
We do 5 days at yearn because we don’t use a quorum and need to make it long enough to allow for social tension to drive voting when needed. It’s a poor mans’s lazy consensus model with simple tools attempting to allow for movement in governance without requiring whipping votes (which totally sucks to do).
At yearn currently we copy the entire proposal into snapshot which is on ipfs (can’t be edited) and represents the formal proposal. Then the forum post links to it and mirrors the copy – and yes that should not be edited – mods could lock it once the snapshot is live.
@Hierux would you like to implement this? The @moderators team is small and informally organized so far. If you’d like to handle implementation I can talk to the other mods about giving you mod privileges so you can action your proposal.
Anyone on thread opposed? Or anyone else volunteering?
we need to add a Specification section that clearly lays out exactly what will be done at a technical level. this can be code, or it can be just very clear instructions, ie a spec. This avoids situations where a LIP may pass but be unclear in how to implement.
Here is our template at yearn, sorry for the image couldn’t find the source text…
Also I suggest we try to make this LIP-1 today and set it for a 48 hour vote with a high quorum (25%?) noting it’s a special circumstance needing immediate resolution and very uncontroversial (97% for in the poll). We need to establish legitimacy asap over voting process.
Thank you for your suggestions @trial0r. I don’t personally have enough experience with snapshot/DAO votes to be able to properly gauge if 10% quorum is a level that can be hit consistently. I do know that voter engagement has been an issue for some protocols, but I’m open to including it.
Fair point. I will add a section for technical implementation details. Your input has been invaluable so far, thank you.
@matto-matto, I’d be happy to help moderate and guide implementation, but I want to be mindful of any interpretation that this LIP (if approved) was foisted on the community unilaterally by me.
If possible, I’d like to include co-signers on the proposal to reflect the community alignment that we’ve achieved thus far. Perhaps @tracheopteryx (due to their significant contributions/guidance from experience w/ Yearn).
I’d like to request that the moderators edit the post to include LIP-1 in the title, as I believe this represents a critical step toward establishing a meaningful standard for community voting procedures.
The outline below represents the most up to date version of this proposal and pending any objections, I would like to move this to Snapshot vote to gather official community sentiment.
LIP - 1: LIP Framework
Phase 1: Community Feedback
Introduce a proposal on the Loot Talk forums using the template provided below.
Include a poll and define clear “For” & “Against” positions.
Proposal author should remain ready to engage with the community e.g. by answering their replies, addressing concerns, and adjusting the proposal as necessary.
The proposal will remain in the Community Feedback phase until the following criteria have been met:
** at least 3 days of discussion have taken place
** the proposal has received at least five comments from different community members
** at least 25% of poll votes are “For”
After achieving sufficient engagement (defined above), the proposal author may request that the forum moderators assign the proposal an official LIP number (e.g., LIP-1234), after which the proposal may move to the Snapshot Voting phase.
Phase 2: Snapshot Voting
Proposal author (or member of moderation team) should create the Snapshot proposal and include the LIP number in the title.
Snapshot proposal should include the author’s username and the finalized version of the proposal details.
Snapshot vote should be open for a minimum of 3 days to provide sufficient time for establishing quorum.
In order for a vote to pass it needs to have a majority approval (>50%) and include a quorum of least 10% of eligible voters.
LIP Template
Summary
A simple description of the proposal’s end result and desired change; this should be non-technical and accessible to a casual community member. Summary should be no more than a few succinct sentences.
Abstract
A short (~200 word) description of the proposed change, the abstract should clearly describe what will be done if the LIP is implemented.
Motivation
This is the problem statement. Explain why this proposal is necessary or useful for the protocol. The author is encouraged to add visual elements such as charts to support their arguments.
Specification
Lay out your proposal - explain how the LIP is going to tackle the issue at hand. The overview should clearly describe how the new feature(s) will be implemented (including technical implementation details, if relevant).
Poll
For: I support this proposal.
Against: I am against this proposal.
Thanks - is it also possible to include “LIP-1” in the title of the forum post itself? e.g., “LIP-1: Loot Improvement Proposals - Establish Framework and Guidelines”.
happy to be a co-signer / co-author or whatever will help
also small note, with the spec section, the poll is cleaner as just “I vote for this proposal” and “I vote against this proposal” as the actions taken should be clearly detailed already in the spec.
Sure, that’s reasonable. Updated the Poll template in my post above for simplicity’s sake.
Are there any other items of feedback or objections to the most recent iteration of the framework?
I think it’s important to note that this is an initial bootstrapping effort to help structure conversation around proposals and to provide guidance on how we, as a community, can ensure that quality proposals make it to Snapshot vote. At this point in time we do NOT have a process for what happens when/if a Snapshot vote is successful - this proposal does not attempt to solve that problem.
If the Loot-Talk forums remain a central hub of discussion around community efforts, future LIPs in a post-burn world could represent proposals for how to handle collective “Lootverse” decisions not under control by other DAOs, teams, etc.
The LIP framework can continue to represent the standards that we hold ourselves to as a community when proposing and discussing future directions. I imagine discussions would shift from focusing on how we intend to govern contract related actions to more social aspects (e.g., community curation of derivatives, etc)
I don’t claim to know what direction the community will move in after this LIP-0 vote completes (we’re living in interesting times), but I think we still benefit from a cohesive process for community signaling.
Would it make sense to make votes periodic? Rather than “can start at any time?” For example, all votes start on tuesday end thursday kind of thing?
What we’ve seen across the ecosystem at Tally is that while it’s awesome folks create proposals at any time of day, for voters long term apathy sets in an engagement drops because it’s cognitively too difficult to follow a stream of proposals that can happen at any time.
Maybe in the beginning the engagement is high, but the 24/7 nature burns folks out. At least if there was a “proposal day” that everyone knows about it’s easier for folks to tune in and be engaged. Otherwise it’s easy for some voters to show up only on the date/time they happen to be paying attention and is convenient.
I’d consider lowering the quorum requirement longer term, though, because other projects usually meet their requirements with team, VC or delegate tokens. Right now, LOOT doesn’t have any of these - so it may be hard to mobilize the community
Great work @Hierux. I second the need for clarity and better organization. These are critical improvements moving forward with voting.
Also, I like the edits made that added time to voting so that everyone has an opportunity to vote.
I often bring up aavegotchi as it relates to loot, but this is because imho they have worked through many of the issues that loot is working through now. There are obvious differences between loot and aavegotchi, the primary one is that aavegotchi is very centralized, but there is still much that can be learned from their stumbles and successes.
Alright, seems we lost a bit of momentum after Dom’s LIP-0 proposal to burn the keys. I think it introduced some uncertainty around the need for a community standard for proposals (e.g., will there even be future LIPs, what decisions will we have to even make as a community if the keys are burned?).
However, it’s clear that when the burn vote passes we will be required to make another set of decisions around how to handle the remaining Loot bags, how they should be distributed, who should control them, etc in the near future.
I suggest that we capture this opportunity and move forward with a Snapshot vote on LIP-1 to gather community sentiment for adopting the LIP framework.
As noted by @tracheopteryx above, because this is a special circumstance and we are attempting to establish legitimacy of the community voting process, the Snapshot vote requirements will deviate slightly from those in the proposal to require a higher quorum:
Quorum of 1,555 total votes (~20% of Loot currently in existence)
Majority approval (>51%) for adopting the LIP framework
Vote is open for 4 days, ending September 15th 16:00 GMT
