Looking at the DAO and the burning/not burning vote, the situation is more complex than with regular proposals, since the burning proposal has two outcomes that have actual actions and the funds are already minted. With a regular proposal, let’s say a project asks for $1M for onboarding. The DAO votes, and if the proposal doesn’t get the quorum (24M of yes + abstain), the project simply doesn’t get the funding.
With the upcoming burning vote and the current participation in the DAO, it matters what we’re actually voting on.
Does the proposal ask about BURNING or KEEPING the funds?
If the proposal asks, Should the funds be burned? and there’s no quorum (24M of yes + abstain), what happens? Will the funds be kept, or do we need to vote at a later time?
What if the proposal asks, “Should we keep the funds?” and that proposal doesn’t get quorum? Will they get burned?
There’s high chance none of those get required quorum. In that case wouldn’t be wise to have 2 voting’s on each question, and if none of them get the quorum, postpone it once the DAO has more voting power?
Summarizing:
The DAO burning vote is complex because it has two actionable outcomes and the funds are already minted. If the proposal asks about burning or keeping funds and lacks quorum, it’s unclear what happens next. Given the likely lack of quorum, it might be wise to hold two votes and postpone if neither reaches quorum until the DAO has more voting power.
the DAO on Tally has only (For, Against, Abstain) you can’t change that, nor give more options, additionally for a proposal to pass it only takes (For+Abstain) to meet the quorum. So if a voting has 21M votes FOR and 20M Against, the proposal doesn’t meet the 24M quorum.
Sorry, my mistake, I didn’t know that. You are right.
So, in this case, we need to do both, if the first question doesn’t get quorum on ‘yes’ + ‘abstain’ or ‘no’ + ‘abstain’.
And we need to start with the question: Should we keep the tokens with a price link as proposed by Grumlin? If it gets quorum on ‘yes’ + ‘abstain’, we don’t need to do a second vote. If it gets quorum on ‘no’ + ‘abstain’, then we can do a second vote: Should we keep it with just vesting? If it gets quorum on ‘no’ + ‘abstain’, then it means burn.
Anyway, if any question doesn’t reach quorum, it doesn’t mean yes or no! For example: Should we burn it?/Should we keep it? If quorum wasn’t reached, it doesn’t mean that you agree or disagree, it means that the community hasn’t decided at the moment.
Hey, thanks for bringing this up, I saw our formulation in the blog post was a little misleading, so we adjusted it now slightly to be precise: Burn or Allocate to DAO Fund: the date is set
Edited for clarification:
In short, we plan to ask the community, if they would like to burn the 100M tokens. If the proposal is accepted, the 100M will be burned. If the proposal is rejected, it would mean the 100M will be vested as planned. And in case the quorum isn’t reached, the proposal will be resubmitted after some time.
Hi @Mona, that’s great that in case a quorum is not reached, the proposal will be resubmitted. However, since only Yes and Abstain votes are considered for the quorum, the proposal may never reach it. Therefore, there should be a limit on the number of resubmission attempts, or an additional proposal for keeping the funds, as I mentioned in the original post.
I think we plan to specify in the proposal text, that we consider the quorum reached for this proposal, if more than 24M voted for/abstain OR against/abstain.
Therefore, there should be a limit on the number of resubmission attempts, or an additional proposal for keeping the funds, as I mentioned in the original post.
Oh, and it looks like @przemer has joined the manipulation…))) The question should only be: "Should we keep the funds?" If the quorum is reached with Yes+abstain, the funds will be kept; if it’s No+abstain, they will be burned. And resubmit this proposal as many times as needed until we get quorum by one of the direct answers.
Where’s the manipulation? I actually want to make the process as fair as possible in the scope of Tally’s DAO capabilities.
Posts like that
show you half-read stuff and don’t realize potential implications of a wrongly asked question. You keep saying ‘no + abstain’ quorum, there’s nothing like that in Tally. Those things have to be explicitly stated in the proposal, and agreed on outside of Tally.
Sorry from my side, the problem is that I didn’t work with Tally, and now, after reading the documentation about Tally, I didn’t think they were so bad…
Why did I mention manipulations? We only need one question, but because Tally has significant restrictions, if we want to do it fully decentralized, we need to ask 2 or more questions, step by step. But anyway, I understand now why you ask these questions. Sorry again.
I think the first vote we can do like the community wants. That’s why we can ask only 1 question (“Should we keep the funds?”), and if the quorum reaches yes+abstain, we will keep it and close the question. We can count no+abstain manually, and if it reaches 24M votes, then burn it manually. For example of voting, Tally | Optimism | Anticapture Commission, we can see that Tally count it accurate enough
So, to be honest, I didn’t catch why Tally didn’t do that, like counting yes+abstain and no+abstain separately. And if something reaches quorum, or both, choose who gets more votes in total. Maybe the logic was not to refuse the members about the question, because in my case, 1 question has 2 different actions based on the result of voting. But then Abstain is Yes. Abstain have no sense in this case, because it’s count only with Yes. That’s the problem.
@grumlin
I strongly believe keeping it and allowing the ecosystem fund to support frontier markets builders will ultimately increase stakeholders value overtime and the tech can stand the test of time of enabling real world applications and utility.
So delusional thinking. This project need to ressurect from being Dead. It means lisk tokens should be burned straight before last chance before 2024-5 bull run. Nobody will remember project that was downperforming since 2019 having token price even lower than on deep in 2019. We need strong token price rise as fast as possible to make this project be able to grab any community and ressurect horribly bad investors sentiment.
However, since only