Simplify the voting process to improve operational efficiency

Simplify the voting process to improve operational efficiency

Basic Summary
Although the decentralized governance is well-intentioned, but the voting process is too complicated, the crypto market is changing extremely fast. Under the condition of allowing most investors to participate the governance, we should simplify the voting process in order to improve operating efficiency. And avoid missing any opportunities.

Motivation
Yam’s current proposal process needs to go through forums, snapshots, and online voting. Some proposals take nearly a month to finish the process. Although cautious is necessary though, they may not meet the rapidly changing market or miss some opportunities. On the other hand, there are too many forum proposals. There obviously exits a quality gap, that makes all of us waste a lot of time.

Specifications
Improvement plan-

  1. Simplify the process: the forum is fixed for three days + snapshot voting is the shortest two days and the longest three days, and on-chain voting needs to be abolished.
    The forum is mainly to collect public opinions and is also the preliminary evaluation process of the proposal. After several months of inspection, the number of people who will participate in the voting is generally 20-30, and the maximum number of people will not over 60. Some proposals will show stagnant after the third day, so an evaluation period of up to three days should be sufficient. Since the forum voting in the first stage has been discussed and enough time to vote, the snapshot voting in the second stage does not require more time,. It would be proper for minimum 48 hours and maximum 72 hours. According to experience, in the third stage of on-chain voting, participation is generally not active, and gas fees are required. Small investors have no intentions, so this third stage should be abolished. For brainstorming activities other than proposals, there is no time limit. The simplified proposal process can be fast completed in five days, which is the efficiency of dao.
  2. Proposal management: We certainly hope that the team and the community can put forward more useful proposals to enhance the competition ability of Yam, but in fact, the quality of some proposals did not meet the standard specifications, which makes the community unable to understand its true ideas, neither can convince others. These proposals and those old that have not passed the voting should be concentrated together in the “storage area”, not to interfere normal and effective proposals.

Poll to Measure Sentiment

This is your right to–
  • for
  • against

0 voters

current voters 78, so your base assumption is in error in this example

second has 60 votes as of this reply so at top of your threshold, it depends on what is being voted for and to shorten for efficiency is not a bad idea but criterion/foundation should be solid

1 Like

Thanks for your correction. I’ll be more careful about what I said.
It’s been 79 and 61 votes now.

Hanson,

Thank you for your idea. @rossgalloway is working on a governance proposal to give more structure to the entire governance process and also a guide. There are two sides to balance in voting. If you go too fast, you might miss the vote of people that wanted to participate but are not always available, if you go to slow you are just slow in making decisions. It is a very tough problem. We will be voting on the overall governance process when @rossgalloway finishes the details. Let’s discuss together to make Yam stronger.

Also On-Chain votes MUST happen to implement any code change because we are a full decentralized DAO, there are no “multi-sigs” where a small number of key holders and just implement code.

@feddas I don’t know how rossgalloway will simplify the voting process, but i’m expecting. Any effort to improve the operation efficiency should be encouraged and thankful.
On-chain voting is really inefficiency, if the code modify is not so difficult, I still think it is necessary.
However, we can wait rossgalloway’s proposal come out, then to further discuss.

1 Like

This proposal needs some more technical details to be (imo) considered complete, specifically regarding the removal of on-chain voting. What will we replace it with? If it’s a multi-sig, who do you propose has keys to that multi-sig? Isn’t it a bit of decentralization theater if key holders can do whatever they want?

I also don’t think “forum is fixed for three days” is a good idea. Many proposals require much more than 3 days of discussion prior to voting, especially the ones lately regarding removal of rebase, adding inflation, etc.

1 Like

Hanson, Apart from the issues that @feddas and @byron111 brought up above, this is well written and you make some good points. I am working on a proposal to better streamline and clarify the governance process and I will take your points into consideration and be sure to link to this topic when I release it.

There are tradeoffs in governance decisions speed and we need to make sure we understand those trade-offs before making a big change. For me the biggest issue now is not that the process is too complex, but that it is unclear. I hope we can make it easier to understand, and therefor simpler soon.

Totally agree.
And I have certain consensus with feddas after chat on something improving governance structure.
Expecting your proposal for further discuss.

2 Likes