Dear DAO community,
The voting period for the 100M vote is over, and the result is that there is no decision yet, as the proposal did not reach quorum.
As many of you are aware, this result was to be expected, given the high quorum vs. total voting power in the DAO currently, and the Lisk team and Onchain Foundation both confirming they would not be participating in the vote (as was also originally communicated in the announcement of the vote to burn 100m LSK tokens at migration). It would have required a lot of additional voting power from the community to pass the proposal on their own.
Additional promising ideas about how to hold the vote had developed over the past several months, but as was requested by the community, and we also agreed, it was important to hold the vote regardless of the projected outcome as was originally promised. There was still a small chance that more LSK would get staked, or existing voting power would be boosted, so that the community could have reached the quorum on their own.
Although the proposal did not reach quorum this time, it is still an important temperature check about the overall engagement of delegates in the Lisk DAO and about their opinion regarding the 100M vote. In particular, it contributed to raising some important questions regarding the financial resources that Lisk has currently and in the future, to grow its ecosystem.
As you can see in the results on Tally, an overwhelming majority of the delegates who participated in the vote were FOR burning the 100M:
- For: 99.46%
- Abstain: 0.53%
- Against: 0.01%
In total, 11.43M vpLSK participated in the voting. To reach the quorum for this proposal, either 24M ‘yes;’ and ‘abstain’ votes, or 24M ‘no’ and ‘abstain’ votes are required.
Even had the Lisk team delegate voted ‘yes’ or ‘abstain’, the vote would still have not reached quorum. The Lisk team delegate receives the vast majority of voting power from the Onchain Foundation, and therefore not participating in the vote (as opposed to voting “Abstain”) honored the commitment made before the token migration:
“To ensure a fair and community-driven decision, the Onchain Foundation will not participate in the voting process.”
Additionally, as the Lisk team, we would generally be hesitant to push through any irreversible, one-time decision, that could have such a massive impact on the future of the entire Lisk ecosystem without a sufficiently larger amount of LSK supporting it.
Path Forward
The results of the vote transmit a clear wish of the current active delegates to burn the tokens. There have also already been active discussions about what additional changes and efforts are needed to create a more fair and “real” DAO, which we fully support and acknowledge we are only in the very early stages of creating. To move all these conversations forward, focusing on an overall holistic approach to making the Lisk DAO vibrant and diverse pillar of the ecosystem, we would like to start discussions on several topics, including the following:
-
Alternative proposals to the 100m token burn vote that could more realistically reach quorum at the current moment. One existing proposal, put forward by the Superchain Eco team, is to “Break the Token Burn into Yearly Votes.”
- As the Lisk team, we are in favor of holding annual votes on burning the upcoming year’s allocation for the DAO, as this would enable us to take a measured approach to burn the tokens that are not immediately needed while still leaving future allocations available. That said, we likely would also be open to other suggested compromises.
-
Active ways to incentivize more DAO delegates to stake LSK and help distribute the voting power among more stakeholders in the Lisk ecosystem. Two starting places for tangible next steps include:
-
Deciding on an ideal quorum level for the Lisk DAO. Should it be lowered, and if so what would be the pros and cons of doing so? Should the topic be revisited once we have a better idea how many vpLSK there will be in the future?
The goal should be to decentralize the Lisk DAO and increase the number of active delegates, so the community is able to utilize the DAO funds and make decisions on certain topics even without the Lisk team and /or Onchain Foundation participating in a vote, balancing effectiveness while maintaining security of the DAO’s assets. This is an ideal we want to actively strive for, even if the goal will realistically take time to be achieved.
During the current voting period, some important questions were also raised by the community regarding the general financial situation of Lisk, and the ongoing support from the Onchain Foundation to support Lisk in the years to come. While we cannot speak for the Onchain Foundation, the Lisk team prepared the following statement to hopefully help address the most important questions around this topic.
Thank you all for the constructive conversations on various topics over the past few weeks and months! We are encouraged that we are heading in the right direction as a DAO and excited to work collaboratively to help lay the groundwork for a thriving DAO for years to come!
Please let us know if there are any additional high-level foundational pieces to the DAO we should add as key discussion topics on how best to move forward.
, I agree that following this vote (assuming it doesn’t reach quorum) we can discuss what are potential paths forward, and think that this should also include discussion / agreements on quorum, plans to bring more participants into the DAO (as mentioned in response to Grumlin above), etc. In other words, a holistic plan for the DAO.
Still, you’re now conveniently referencing my statement, even though it’s true. The truth is, the community does know what it wants — it has a very sharp sense for detecting deception and disrespect. And that’s the root of the problem.
