Proposal 1: Add a “governance” flag to validators to indicate if their delegated ONE should be counted towards or excluded from governance voting. CEX (Centralized Exchanges - Binance/Kucoin) have verbally agreed to not be interested in voting but we need to have an official system for this indication and opting out of governance.
Adding a flag like this to the edit-validator command for participation preference:
--governance true --governance false
If a validator opts out, their delegated ONE would not be counted towards total weight needed to pass a vote. It should also indicate on the dashboard that the validator is not participating in governance.
Should we add a governance flag to the edit-validator command?
Yes
No
0voters
Proposal 2: If a validator does not vote for 3 governance votes in succession they are automatically flagged as --governance false and their delegated ONE is excluded from future votes until they mark true again via the blockchain. The validator can anytime send a --governance true flag to re-enable governance for the next snapshot taken for a governance voting issue.
Should validators be marked inactive after 3 missed votes?
Makes it nice and transparent that binance for example have no interest in controlling via governance.
There is a verbal agreement but this is not transparent and an oral agreement is not worth the paper it’s written on.
This would make it very transparent and will certainly alleviate a lot of fud surrounding rumours of exchange involvement.
I voted no for proposal 2 as I think it should be voluntary and it is not considering if they can be reconsidered, who will decide and how that would happen.
Proposal 1 is a must have imo
[EDIT]
After the amendment of proposal 2, I agree with it and have changed my vote to Yes
It would be up to the validator in proposal 2 to simply mark themselves active again and then the next time a snapshot is done to start voting, they’d be included again.
Governance would be totally voluntary and there’s no “penalty” for not voting in X number of votes, we’d just not longer count your weight until you want to start participating.
Fair enough but I would then thin it would be wise to include “abstain” as an option so one can vote with a non vote… for those that disagree with it actually making it to a vote. That data is important to record. Maybe another discussion but yes, agree to both
The VDAO could easily add an option to abstain on any vote which would trigger a reset of your missed votes - at least it shows you’re actively watching and participating in votes if you’re doing so and not just MIA from governance.
Does an abstain vote remove your weight from the count towards 51% participation?
I would vote yes on both just for the sake of transparency, but I think the second one can be seen as an attack on voting abstinence. Not voting on purpose is used (in occasions) to protest the very existence of a proposal, or as a means to say the options available are not suitable. By marking a validator after three misses you’re forcing them to vote on proposals they might not be happy with or that they might not care about. Sure, it is unlikely that a validator would not care for three consecutive proposals, but it’s possible they’d vote for whatever option just to not get marked. Anyway, at least they’ll have the option to be mark themselves active again. Just my thoughts.
I agree with both proposals. They are straightforward and democratic in the sense that in the end the validator will always have the right to vote as long as he wishes to; there’s no censorship.
Perhaps this HIP could be merged or discussed together with HIP-15.
Once this moves onto the 2nd step of the process the vdao will still need to have a feasibility study done by Harmony before assigning a HIP # and it looks like HIP-15 will be done with voting by then.
I feel this request is at the blockchain level and HIP-15 is a staking dashboard UI update request but they may be one in the same and could be done at the same time.
The VDAO can certainly add an abstain option to show that you’re still active onto the votes and to reset your counter.
As they control governance they can decide how to implement this and setup the HIP vote based off of how the dev team feels it would work best with the staking portal.
Can we get a feasibility review from @sophoah@rongjian@lij for this so we can assign a HIP number to this proposal and advertise it for further discussion…
I think it is a great idea and should move forward with it…
