Should 100 million LSK of the DAO treasury be burned?

[grumlin]

@Mona

To really reflect, how the broader community and stakeholders feel about this decision, the required voting power should come from the community.

@Mona, let’s not flatter ourselves. I’ve already said that, at this point, a real DAO doesn’t actually exist — and there are several reasons for that. First, there are very few large holders, but at the same time, many people have delegated their votes to @przemer, who actually has a very small personal stake — it all comes from the community. Second, the team and people closely associated with it currently hold an overwhelming majority. So at this point, the stake itself represents the interests of the community — after all, we’re not following a “one person, one vote” model, but rather a “one LSK, one vote” model. That means people vote with their stake. Therefore, the main task of the DAO should be to increase the amount of staked (locked) tokens, and ideally also grow the number of people actively involved. That’s why the staking system itself needs to be reformed — and I have a few ideas on how this could be done. I’ll create a separate thread later to discuss it.

@Mona

But, keeping the voting participation of our previous proposals in mind, it’s fair to assume, that reaching the quorum without the Lisk team delegate participating in the voting, is currently very hard to achieve. So it is very likely, that this proposal won’t meet the quorum this time ( - It is a little bit hard to estimate though, because I can imagine that this proposal will reach the most delegate participation rate so far).
Considering this, it might be necessary to discuss, if the overall quorum for DAO proposals should be lowered, as it is often already close to reach it at all. We could then create a proposal to lower the quorum, before we hold the next vote about the fate of the 100M LSK.
What do you think?

As for lowering the quorum — I’m against it for now. If we do that, then just three delegates (assuming Max and Oliver step aside temporarily) would be able to pass any proposal they want, which would only worsen the situation. So under current conditions, keeping the quorum at 24 million is the most optimal solution. In this setup, the team (by which I mean the top three delegates: Lisk team, Max, and Oliver) would need to secure the support of at least 3–5 other top delegates — which would at least somewhat reflect actual community support.

@Mona

I think the upcoming 100M vote can give us a good impression about the overall interest and participation in this proposal, and based on that, we will be able to estimate better how much the quorum needs to be lowered. Imho, the risk should be relatively low: The current quorum is pretty high anyways(considering we have currently about 35M vpLSK delegated on Tally), and since we increased the voting period to two weeks, the DAO community would have enough time to outvote malicious proposals, just in case.

As I already wrote above, when just 3 delegates can gather enough voting power, while it takes negotiations with 20–25 others to build any opposition — that’s not a viable setup. At this point, I’ll say it outright: the Lisk team is playing dirty.

The Lisk team has increased its voting weight to 11.33 million by either voting for themselves with an additional 2 million or by locking 666,666 LSK for 2 years. The situation has now become even worse than it was before.

Why are you doing this? You’re sinking the project with your own hands — I just don’t understand it.

@mona @shuse2 @dominic Maybe the team could stop stealing 25% of the staking rewards from the community?