voted yes for #1 and no for #2 - life happens good validators will miss votes and would hurt them to have a red flag on their validator page when delegators are choosing. 
The point of #2 is to be an internal counter (no indicators or red flags on the staking dashboard, that’ll be known by their governance status anyways) to keep track and disable validators who continuously don’t participate in governance at all.
The point is, if they don’t vote, their delegations shouldn’t count towards governance quorums. If they don’t like being marked as not participating in governance they can flag themselves as active and start participating once again. There’s no punishment for opting out.
We haven’t had a new HIP to vote on in months, it’s time to start progressing eventually.
2 Likes
Due to the VDAO Charter, Patrick has to submit the formal proposal on Snapshot. It also requires a feasibility review. @sophoah and @rongjian please let us know if HIP 21 is feasible. This will allow Patrick to move forward with these proposals.
{It has been split up into 2 different proposals due to snapshot voting limitations.
3 Week time line with 7 days as pre-proposal on snapshot and then 14 days of voting.
Start date Apr 22, 2022
End date May 6, 2022
Proposal #2 Snapshot
It is stake weighted with 3 choices
For, Against, and Abstain}
2 Likes
Can we get a feasibility review and estimated implementation timeline on this HIP before it goes to a vote?
2 Likes
If this gets implemented, how would a DAO tool track this (ie. snapshot)? Would snapshot track this by querying for the node status based on this flag or would it work with the VDAOG token @Maffaz has built? Would like to get some more concrete feasibility as to how this would work with a tool such as snapshot.
1 Like
From my understanding, the governance flag would be on by default once this update is pushed out. Then after 3 missed votes from a validator (them not voting on stuff) their governance flag would automatically be set to off. In regards to VDAO token, that will be automatically given to validators based on their stake weight and isn’t currently being implemented in regards to governance participation.
The idea was discussed for using VDAO token to make it voluntary where a validator that wishes to participate in governance would have to request the tokens manually. Then, anyone without the tokens in their wallet, won’t be included in Quorum.
@Maffaz had pointed out that they discussed this already and it could lead to some potential issues such as lack of participation or even smaller validators being able to make changes because nobody else requests tokens and participates in governance. This is a possible long-term future scenario, but still one that we must consider.
A suggestion that he had would be to use VDAO token in that way for governance flag, but also require a minimum stake on the validator such as 100k delegated for example, to prevent people from spinning up validators just to cheat the voting system. Especially if we end up lowering entry requirements and have bootstrap etc to help bring them up.
I hope this clears things up for you a bit, and please anyone, if I’m inaccurate in anything that I stated here, please correct me as I’m just going off of what I’ve been told to the best of my understanding atm.
2 Likes
The chain is already queried to check the staked one.
A small update to consider the flag would be required but would come from the same source
Hello everyone.
I wrote this in October for the governance site.
This was long before the move to an unvetted & untested platform that needs some major upgrades to be compliant with the old voting system we had.
At this time I’m withdrawing my request for any changes to voting as the VDAO is going to need to make and propose a vote on many changes to the process anyways. Without CLI voting, our governance voting process is DOA regardless.
@frwrdslosh please close and lock this post.
4 Likes
sorry for late reply, I don’t see any major hurdles to implement this from technical standpoint.
1 Like