Title: Allow “abstain” vote
Authors: @knightsemplar / @Raslambek
Related Discussions: N/A
Submission Date: 30/12/22
Summary
The current vote contract is configured to only allow “yes” or “no” votes.
An “abstain” option should be added.
Motivation
As the DAO is developing, there has appeared a request from the community to introduce an “Abstain” option. This includes but not limited to:
It is also natural, that with eIP 38 close to approval and the Recognised Delegates programme launched, RDs will face a conflict of interest when filtering and voting for the next batch of RDs. The potential risk is that RDs will vote for themselves or those who they filtered.
At the same time, given the commitment to take part in >80% of all votes, Recognised and Active Delegates are not in a position to express their abstention by not participation in the voting. In this regard, “abstention” would be a way out to both maintain high level of participation and avoid conflict of interest.
In order to avoid gamification of the Governance by using “abstain” to maintain high participation level in the voting without meaningful contribution to the discussion and decision making process, the “abstain” vote should be properly explained both on the forum and Snaphot in respect of a particular proposal
Specification & Implementation
The Euler Foundation would be engaged to change the voting contract to allow for “abstain” as an additional voting option.
Voting
- Yes, implement this change.
- No, leave things as they are.
4 Likes
Thank you for the suggestion @knightsemplar mplar and @Raslambek. I would have also preferred to abstain on one or two occasions, and I agree that the proposed minimum voting participation for recognised delegates raises the stakes around an abstention option.
To add some further specificity to the proposal request: it looks like there are two simple ways to impement an abstention option in Snapshot:
-
(Automated option) change Euler’s Voting System on Snapshot from Single Choice Voting to Basic Voting, which forces the vote options for every proposal to be For, Against, and Abstain
-
(Manual option) keep the current Voting System on Snapshot, but always add an Abstain option to the list of options for voting
The advantage of changing the voting system to Basic (option 1) is that proposers do not need to manually enter, and remember to provide, an abstention option for every proposal. The disadvantage is that proposals would not be able to offer multiple options.
Historically, eIPs have been presented as binary Yes/No proposals, with all narrowing of multiple options taking place during the RFC process. Therefore, to relieve the burden of having to remember to add an Abstain option for every proposal, it would make sense in my view to go for Option 1 unless/until we have a real reason to offer multiple choices in an eIP.
2 Likes
Thank u for your comment @allthecolors, since we are not experts at Snapshot, that is a relevant observation indeed. As for the options u described, 1 seems more logical. However, Im reminded of the EIP 35: Claiming SAFE Airdrop discussion when a number of candidates applied. And since the DAO just claimed SAFE I can expect that the question who is going to be a delegate for SAFE will be at the table again soon with quite a number of people presenting themselves as a candidate. So we will definitely need multiple options.
Another thing I would like to draw the DAO attention to is that in what situations “Abstain” could be used. I would suggest limiting it (at least for the start) to the cases of conflict of interest so that we do not encourage lazy and favours like voting.
2 Likes
Given the broad agreement, I’d say this has passed the temperature check. @knightsemplar please feel free to move this one to a vote.
2 Likes
Title: eIP 43 : Allow “abstain” vote
Authors: @knightsemplar / @Raslambek
Submission Date: 13/01/23
Summary
The current vote contract is configured to only allow “yes” or “no” votes.
An “abstain” option should be added.
Motivation
As the DAO is developing, there has appeared a request from the community to introduce an “Abstain” option. This includes but not limited to:
It is also natural, that with eIP 38 close to approval and the Recognised Delegates programme launched, RDs will face a conflict of interest when filtering and voting for the next batch of RDs. The potential risk is that RDs will vote for themselves or those who they filtered.
At the same time, given the commitment to take part in >80% of all votes, Recognised and Active Delegates are not in a position to express their abstention by not participation in the voting. In this regard, “abstention” would be a way out to both maintain high level of participation and avoid conflict of interest.
In order to avoid gamification of the Governance by using “abstain” to maintain high participation level in the voting without meaningful contribution to the discussion and decision making process, the “abstain” vote should be properly explained both on the forum and Snaphot in respect of a particular proposal
Specification & Implementation
The Euler Foundation would be engaged to change the voting contract to allow for “abstain” as an additional voting option.
Voting
- Yes, implement this change.
- No, leave things as they are.
Snapshot
Link
4 Likes