Proposal & Discussion: 1% quorum for Pure Snapshot Signalling

1

We’ve just started some pure Snapshot votes, and I realize that we’re breaking new ground. Our PTIP process does not have policies regarding pure Snapshot votes.

Pure Snapshot votes should be run on the pooltogether.eth Snapshot Space. It takes into account both POOL and PPOOL.

I propose we mirror our on-chain quorum of 1% for pure Snapshot votes (i.e. proposals that are simply signalling for a multisig)

For on-chain proposals, our Snapshot PPOOL votes require a 20% quorum. This is because the votes can easily be swung by a whale to effectively provide voting leverage.

This will apply to both PTIP-46: Forming the Treasury Working Group and PTIP-47: Prize Adjustments.

  • I approve of a 1% quorum for pure Snapshot signalling
  • I disagree, and I’ll explain why

0 voters

3 Likes
2

Sounds reasonable and logical to me. Thanks for proposing, this is good to clarify.

3 Likes
3

Two proposals recently ended which “failed” according to the above criteria.

Both proposals had good support:

PTIP-46: Forming the Treasury Working Group :camera_flash: snapshot :scroll: forum post

Voters: 82

For: 46.42k
Against: 2.59k

PTIP-47: Prize Adjustments :camera_flash: snapshot :scroll: forum post

Voters: 68

Option A: 33.19k
Option B: 5.34k
Option C: 1.19k
No change: 0

These proposals each had about 40k or more votes. These proposals were strongly supported, although they did not reach quorum.

Given that the above framework was introduced halfway through PTIP-46 and 47, and the very low risk of them, I think we move forward with them as a community.

1% Quorum Doesn’t Suit All Proposals

A quorum of 1% is required for on-chain votes because proposals control the treasury. The risk for bad proposals is our entire treasury. 1% is applied to all proposals because codifying the ‘risk’ of a proposal, on-chain, is very complicated.

However off-chain we have the opportunity to optimize. We don’t need 1% quorum for all proposals. The above two proposals risked very little:

  • PTIP-46 funded a treasury working group with 2250 POOL. A relatively small amount as far as grants go.
  • PTIP-47 adjusted prize payouts by +$18k per week. Gov could always reverse the decision, so again the risk here is quite low. Assuming gov takes a week to react, risk would be two weeks worth of additional cost, or $36k.

Both of these are low risk being < $40k in cost.

A Quorum Framework for Low-Risk Proposals

I think that the financial risk level of a proposal should inform its quorum. Risk level = cost + funds at risk. It may not be monetary costs, but the

The higher the proposal risk, the higher the quorum that is required to pass it.

For example, imagine we stratified quorum into two tiers:

Tier Risk Quorum
1 <$100k No quorum
2 $100k+ 100k POOL (1%)

Proposals should include some basic risk analysis in terms of cost + funds at risk so that we can decide what degree of quorum, if at all, we need.

For future proposals, I think we should use a framework like the one above to evaluate the risk of a proposal. This will help the executive team, or whichever proxy of PT gov, evaluate whether they execute a proposal.

I would love to hear anyone’s thoughts on this! Whether this structure is good, a different one, or none at all.

Ultimately, this is just social consensus so it needs everyone to be on-board.

2 Likes
4

I think we should move forward with these PTIPs.
They were strongly supported and uncontested.

Establishing a tiered quorum framework like this is ideal.
It’s demoralizing seeing proposals with overwhelming support top out at 40-70k votes.

Anything we can do to make those votes count is welcomed.
Allowing less risky changes to have a smaller quorum is a compromise we can (and should) make.

2 Likes
5

I think your tier system is fine and a good solution. I do think it should be retroactive for 46 and 47.

Part of me wonders if it would be better as a floating quorum where 1 POOL = $1 of risk. There could also be a 100k POOL (1%) cap.

Also, maybe there should be something official about how risk is calculated? Like you said with PTIP-47, the risk is 18k per week. That would reach the $100k cap in 6 weeks.

2 Likes
6

I am in full support of @Brendan’s suggestion to go forward with PTIP-46 & 47 and of a quorum framework for low-risk proposals.
I know you are already researching ways to make it possible: A lot of highly engaged community members have $POOL on Polygon due to the mPOOL distribution via Coordinape. Having those included into votes would also help in reaching quorum as a community.

2 Likes
7

I agree we should retro-actively apply the results of this to PTIP 46 & 47. However, I feel 2 tiers is too narrow, and we’re missing softer, harder to define metrics → control/impact on the protocol.

I haven’t fully thought through my desire on this, but I feel the high-level control of the proposal should somehow be worked out in terms of risk to the protocol. The executive group has more of a control impact than the polygon ops group, thus they should get a higher quorum for requests.

This is also why I feel 2 tiers is too narrow. Again I don’t have this fully baked yet, so I cannot provide an answer I’m 100% comfortable with, but I am mostly comfortable with the structure proposed. Perhaps 3 tiers with a couple degrees of impact?

Low Impact Medium Impact High Impact
<$25k No Quorum 25k POOL (0.25%) 50k POOL (0.5%)
$25k - $100k 25k POOL (0.25%) 50k POOL (0.5%) 75k POOL (0.75%)
$100k 100k POOL (1%) 100k POOL (1%) 100k POOL (1%)

Just thinking out loud there, well aware that a whale could effectively pass the 25k POOL, I’m just tossing some food for thought out there. I really think something like choosing a Gitcoin winner should have the lowest of bars (it’s no protocol change and small fund disbursement) whereas something like the Badger pool (~$55k) or adjust reserve rates (Global Pool changes) should have marginally higher hurdles (not a contract change, but a more protocol related change).

Either way, snapshot signaling needs a looser belt. Let’s just be careful how loose we make it.

3 Likes
8

How do you quantify impact?

9

That’s the really hard question, and likely annoying because I don’t find it easy to outline in hard facts - it’s like the annoying “Soft Skills” section you need on web2 resumes to beat the bots.

My general thinking is:
Low Impact - No direct protocol impact;

  • this could straight disbursement of funds (Gitcoin award),
  • temp check for some other initiatives that can indirectly impact the protocol (Grants using it to gage community support of Llama),
  • funding groups that may impact the protocol indirectly (Treasury Working Group, they won’t carry voting power but have the power of prose),
  • and likely items I am not aware of or foresee

Medium Impact - Items that have direct impact on the protocol

  • Temp checks to validate contentious items (Treasury diversification with VCs)
  • Items currently determined by PT Inc. (what pools to host on flagship [GUSD], partnerships [Aave])
  • Items currently performed by PT Inc. with community support (Reserve rate adjustments, Prize adjustments)
  • UI changes, Git commits that are not contract related (once further decentralized)
  • other things I’ve missed

High Impact - Items that directly impact the protocol and ecosystem

  • Partnerships that are more contentious (Fei, Ondo, PoolTogether if it had feedback like Treasury Diversification had)
  • Temp check on Sushi LP support from PTIP-36
  • Bringing on Part-time/Full-time individuals
  • Motions for Ops teams should they feel they are needed
  • Contract related Git commits (once further decentralized)
  • items I’ve neglected to think about