For proposals involving budget

0 replies, 415 views, 1 likes


Ar1 has proposed a new function to pause a creator's voting weight for 3 months if their proposal fails, as an anti-sybil method to encourage better proposal design and prevent voting system abuse. However, concerns arise that this could discourage proposal submissions and create barriers for new members.

What is this about?

This discussion revolves around a new function proposed by Ar1 for dealing with proposals to transact with new counter-parties. The function, if implemented, would pause the creator's voting weight for a period of 3 months if their proposal does not pass. This is suggested as a broad anti-sybil method, which is aimed at encouraging more careful proposal design and preventing the consumption of voters' consensus repeatedly.

How is the community reacting?

The community's reaction to this proposal is not explicitly mentioned in the summaries. However, the fact that this proposal has been put forward suggests that there is a concern within the community about the quality of proposals and the potential for abuse of the voting system.

Why this is positive?

The proposed function could have several positive impacts. Firstly, it could encourage more thoughtful and well-designed proposals, as creators would be incentivized to ensure their proposals pass to avoid a pause in their voting weight. Secondly, it could prevent the repeated consumption of voters' consensus, ensuring that the voting process is not abused and that each vote carries significant weight.

Why this is negative?

On the downside, this function could potentially discourage members from making proposals due to the risk of losing their voting weight. This could lead to a decrease in community participation and engagement. Furthermore, it could also create a barrier for new members who may not be as familiar with the community's expectations and standards for proposals.

Posted 5 months ago

Last reply 5 months ago

Summary updated a month ago

Last updated 06/12 00:44