Absenteeism penalty: if xGovs are absent for N proposals in a row, they will lose the xGov status. Absences are counted in Proposal scrutiny. They can rejoin by subscribing again (paying the fee)
Boycott vote: xGov that want to actively boycott a Proposal (to make the democratic quorum fail on purpose) can cast a new type of “Boycott” vote. Boycotts are not counted as absences.
Committee Staleness (dormant): the xGov Registry protects itself from failures of the off-chain component, which might fail to publish the new Committee within 10k blocks after a millionth block. This mechanism prevents a stale Committee from being assigned to new proposals. This feature will remain “dormant” until the back-end process is fully automated.
New Configuration:
xGov Fee: from 10 ALGO → to 100 ALGO
Absence Tolerance: 5
Discussion Phase: from 3 weeks → to 2 weeks
We are currently working on implementing and testing the changes above, aiming to release and reopen proposals early to mid next week.
why there are multiple forms to vote for proposal as no?
with boycote
with voting no
with not voting
and there is only one way to vote for yes..
perhaps this may lead to discrapancy between the yes/no portion? are there going to be any rules that yes/no is going to be counted only from yes/(no+boycot) votes (from account and voting power perspective)?
use case 1:
folks vote yes, so from all accounted votes it passes.
most of the community is against, so they vote no, and some vote boycot..
if there is enough votes that voted no for the proposal the proposal gets passed now
use case 2:
someone finds bot network of accounts that wants to manipulate the results
folks will vote yes, so in sum of all accounted votes it passes
but the proposal is so good that it is voted by all accounts. but the bot network does not vote because of the error or decision of one person.
so this proposal will not pass because it did not reach the participation threshold
Hi Adri,
Thank you for the detailed update on xGov v3.0.0.
Please consider allowing large ALGO holders who actively participated in previous Governance rounds to join the voting process again. I was fully involved in all past votes and contributed as much as I could.
Now, it’s frustrating to just watch from the sidelines while my ALGO tokens sit idle in the wallet. It feels like a missed opportunity to support the ecosystem’s growth.
Now, it’s frustrating to just watch from the sidelines while my ALGO tokens sit idle in the wallet. It feels like a missed opportunity to support the ecosystem’s growth.
if you are running a node you are eligible to be an xGov.
Valar can be used to participate in consensus while maintaining self-custody (for a small fee).
With more than 100k algo, you should certainly run a node/ do p2p staking contributing to security of the network.
Edit:
Also becoming a proposer is different from being able to vote.
Details can be found here:
Ludo, boycott in this context = not counted in any quorums, but attentive and participating.
This will allow the system to identify the difference between xGovs who sign up and never show up to vote, and xGov who show up to vote but do not want to be counted in the quorum (like protesting against a whale approving all votes).
but why is there difference between no and boycott? if someone who wants to vote no against the whale will by mistake vote “no” over “boycott” and his vote will count as yes as he meets the quorum requirement for the whale
just make no “boycott" vote and make one no vote.. and the result make that the result of the votes who voted by stake must be greater or equal then 50% and result of yes of the individual account votes who voted must be greater then 50% .. and this rule 5 miss and you are not longer xgov will make sure that everyone votes..
and it would be great if i can delegate my voting power to someone so that i do not have to wath all the time the xgov page ..
also 100 algo seems to me quite a lot to be registered as the decision maker for the xgov.. if algo will pump in one month to $1 its $100 fee for good feeling to be participating in the grants distribution.. you just lower the participation in it and it will be easier to manipulate it
10 algo was quite normal as you have to have 30k algo and its your daily reward, but 100 algo seems really quite a lot and noone in clear mind will work for you and pay you so that he can work for you
Just thinking out loud, but if you change the vote quorum to simply a yes quorum (needs yes from 30%+ of voters), then we don’t need to have 3 versions of voting no and people can vote no without having to worry about their vote helping people pass.
why 30% and not 50%? when 30% accounts vote yes, does it mean that 70% have voted no? Why should we call it quorum and not “vote by stake and vote per account” ? and both have to have > 50% in order the proposal to be passed..
I’ll be updating it early next week toninclude the boycott vote, which won’t be counted on any quorums. It’ll simply allow the voter to “register their attention”. Check Simon’s post with the last meeting minutes too!
