HIP-12: Vote equality

Maffaz · September 22, 2021, 2:47pm

This is voting purely for Validator based decisions.

Holders can stake to a Validator that holds similar views and it is normal for validators to announce their voting intentions and engage in discussion with their delegates before voting.

ONE4All · September 22, 2021, 3:05pm

Hello,

Apparently there is a plan from the core team to implement the quadratic voting.
It is not very clear to me and some clarification from the team have to be made on this thread.
Here was a bounty opened :

github.com/harmony-one/bounties

Quadratic Voting with Bands

opened 04:58AM - 18 Aug 21 UTC

closed 12:21AM - 15 Sep 21 UTC

spharrison

# Description To balance and align economic, community and participatory intere…sts in Harmony-centric DAOs - quadratic voting with bands is needed. This Bounty is focused on Phase 1 of the implementation: Deploying the Mechanism to Snapshot. When designing the solution - keep in mind that Phase 2 is to deploy the Mechanism on-chain. **Phase 1: Quadratic Voting with 4 Bands Deployed to Snapshot** 1. Snapshot will ping the connected wallet (enable Metamask, Harmony One Wallet and 1Wallet as options) to query the current ONE token balance. 2. The Mechanism will then determine how many votes this wallet can cast. **Band Number 1** - The First Vote requires 100 ONE tokens in the wallet. - Each additional vote (from Vote 2 to Vote 25) increases in "cost" according to this formula: "VOTES = (Vote Number ^2) x 100" where "vote number" is the number of votes you cast. - As a result - the cost for 5 votes would be calculated as such: - Vote 1: (1^2) x 100 = 100 ONE - Vote 2: (2^2) x 100 = 400 ONE - Vote 3: (3^2) x 100 = 900 ONE - Vote 4: (4^2) x 100 = 1,600 ONE - Vote 5: (5^2) x 100 = 2,500 ONE - Total Cost for Voting 5 times = 5,500 ONE Note: The user does NOT PAY their ONEs to snapshot in order to vote. They simply need to have those in their wallet. **Band Number 2** At Vote 25, the cost is multiplied by 1,000 rather than 100. The formula, therefore, becomes: VOTES = (Vote Number ^2) x 1,000 This multiple is maintained for votes between 26 and 50 **Band Number 3** At Vote 51, the cost is multiplied by 10,000 rather than 1,000 or 100 The formula, therefore, becomes: VOTES = (Vote Number ^2) x 10,000 This multiple is maintained for votes between 51 and 75 **Band Number 4** At Vote 76, the cost is multiplied by 100,000 rather than 10,000, 1,000 or 100 The formula, therefore, becomes: VOTES = (Vote Number ^2) x 100,000 It should be functionally impossible for anyone to afford more than 100 votes in this mechanism. ## Context Coin-based voting presents certain challenges to smooth decentralized coordination. The most simple attack comes from the ease in "vote buying" (participants purchasing tokens for a short term in order to affect the outcome of a vote). But also there is a clear threat to disenfranchisement amongst the large number of small token holders. Additionally, coin-based voting with no balance against large token holders will tend to exclude any interests in non-economic centered proposals. While some DAOs will be focused on improving the underlying token valuation - others will pursue other goals. Those DAOs must have a vote system that reflects this sensitivity. However, there must needs be a resistance against gaming the voting system and allowing for a level of alignment with economic interests. To prevent simple sybil attacks, a floor of 100 ONE is necessary. This parallels the decision that 100 ONE represents a significant enough economic interest as to reach the threshold for staking. # Acceptance Criteria * [ ] Milestone 1: Show working mechanism on Harmony Testnet Snapshot. Include the ability to vote with 100 tokens (1 vote), 5,500 tokens (5 votes) and an arbitrary amount of tokens over 5 million (to show that the Mechanism is capable of calculating - accurately - the number of votes this wallet can cast) * [ ] Milestone 2: Add feature to Harmony Testnet Snapshot UX that will allow users to select this voting mechanism as an option. * [ ] Milestone 3: Show 5 votes on Harmony Testnet with 10+ participants using the voting mechanism. * [ ] Milestone 4: Deploy voting mechanism to the Harmony Mainnet Snapshot * [ ] Milestone 5: Add feature to Harmony Snapshot UX that will allow users to select this voting mechanism as an option. * [ ] BONUS MILESTONE: Show 5 votes using this voting mechanism on Harmony Snapshot with 25+ participants within 6 weeks of Milestone 5. # Reward $2000 USD equivalent in ONEs. For calculating the amount of ONE, Harmony uses the 24-hour volume-weighted average price using the Binance API (“weightedAvgPrice”) around the time of transfer.

Can you give us more details please? @Sam @Jacksteroo

These changes could make this proposal irrelevant, so I invite everyone to stop participating in this thread for now.

Sam · September 22, 2021, 3:50pm

Thanks for the question and the tag, @ONE4All.

The current state of play on our Snapshot is that we have two methods of voting. (A) you are a validator so you vote with your BLS keys, (B) you are a holder so you vote with your tokens (1 token = 1 vote).

The Quadratic Voting w/ Bands was designed to open up a new option for voting (see the bounty for an explanation). However, that bounty has been closed because I figured out that there was a better more systematic approach to getting more options for voting.

Our snapshot instance is a fork of an older version of snapshot. If we bring our snapshop up to the current version, other voting mechanisms (including quadratic voting) will be enabled.

Additionally - we have integrated Aragon (in testnet right now) and we are working on DAOhaus / MolochDAOs and other DAO related tools that will help provide additional voting options for the DAOs. (@giv has been working non-stop on these so, please give him your cheers).

This bounty wasn’t designed w/ validators in mind, but rather with the common token holder in mind.

I haven’t commented yet on HIP-12 as I don’t run a validator so I am not part of the “interested community” but I would just caution the group on removing key game theory and economic incentive portions of the protocol governance. I am not going to say more about HIP-12.

Thanks!

ONE4All · September 25, 2021, 2:04pm

HIP-12 : Vote Equality is closed

Results : Rejected

36 participants, 18 agree (3.45%) and 18 disagree (27.74%)

Thank you to all the validators who participated in the vote.

Analysis :
First of all, the harmony governance is young.
This proposal was not easy to pass, since there wasn’t a consensus between the validators during the discussion.
Also there was an uncertainty about the quadratic voting which can explain partially the low participation.
Of course the result is disappointing to us.
ONE4All really trust in the capability of every validator to think by themselves and to take the best decision for harmony.
All the voices should count in a more equitable way. That’s why we made this proposal initially.
Keep in mind that the largest validator have more than 60 times more voting power than the smaller elected one.
We strongly believe the decision making has to be more decentralized and equitable for the best interests of the protocol.
We don’t want to rely on a few minorities of validators to take the decision for everyone, and so the actual voting system, stake weight is problematic (considering the balance of the stakes).
With the EPoS system in mind, the validators should be more balanced giving them more or less the same voting power (something similar to our proposal in the end) BUT currently this is not the case.

The voting system is not the only challenge will face the harmony protocol.

There is probably one more important challenge which is the keys management allowing large validators to use as many keys as they want, and to bid below the 0.65EMS.
Why is it problematic for the decentralization ?

unelected validators are blocked. They are hardly visible if not elected
large validators can have a better APY over the smaller ones incitating the delegators to stake there increasing the unbalance between the validators

After a quick calculation, more than 100 keys could be freed adding potentially more than 100 new validators.
This could be amazing for harmony and make it reach the next level.

Let’s make together the right decisions for the future

Topic		Replies	Views
HIP-27 - Quadratic voting power Validator DAO	74	2637	February 6, 2023
Regarding HIP-25 Validator DAO Bootstrap Initiative Validator DAO	3	411	February 19, 2022
HIP-6: increase external voting power to 51% Validator DAO	30	1767	June 12, 2021
HIP-15: Validator Governance Participation Indicator Governance	26	1582	November 5, 2021
HIP-31: Seasonal Engagement - Enhancing Stake Weight Eligibility Validator DAO	15	961	October 13, 2023

HIP-12: Vote equality

Related Topics