Considering the fact that there are a good number of users of 1inch, there must be a good number of people who have this motivation.
But so far, I don’t think I’ve seen many people discussing this.
(It could just be because I haven’t seen that many arguments in the past)
This may be because profiting from trading itself seems to be motivated by the need for immediacy, and therefore has no affinity with the IX motive
That said, there may be a large potential number of people who use 1inch with IX motives.
In other words, leaning on this motive to increase the number of users may be helpful, but it may not fit the purpose of increasing the number of discussion participants, or it may be more costly to target this than other motives.
So this would use some of the treasury revenue to directly reward governance participants (voters, people creating snapshot proposals, etc…)? I like that idea, we just need to really flesh it out in a Phase-1 and Phase-2 thread.
The DAO needs to think of things like gas costs, % of treasury funds used, delegating votes, eligible chains, etc… and thoroughly describe it in the specification.
Feel free to start a standalone Phase-1 post on it (we’re trying to move away from those Megathreads this a lot of great ideas get buried in them). I’d love to discuss the idea further.
I see that these ideas are for people who already have an incentive to participate in governance.
I don’t know how many of the 1inch users potentially have motivation to participate, but I think these are important too.
By the way, I think the 1inch team has been making appeals on social networking sites.
Did you see an increase in access to the forum, etc. immediately after that?
If there has been no change in access so far, then even with 500k Twitter followers, appealing to people with potential motivation to participate may still have a limited effect.
However, if there is no other way to improve it, and if there is a surplus of development resources, there is no harm in doing so.
If I may offer an opinion, I think we should be cautious about always being able to see which idea is getting how many votes.
I think we should be cautious about always being able to see which idea is getting how many votes, because I feel that if the fact that an idea is getting a lot of votes attracts people to vote for it without taking into account the content, it may lead to a less-than-optimal solution.
Even if decentralized governance becomes effective, I think we need to avoid blind majority voting.
The 1inch Foundation and 1inch DAO are two separate entities that both want to see the 1inch Network grow. They’re working together towards a common goal, but they do not have direct control over each other. We have to keep these definitions in mind during the governance conversations:
This is non-profit organization that initially issued the 1INCH token and is dedicated to growing the community.
1inch Foundation has its own funds that they use to expand the network: Grants, farming incentives, gas refunds, research, integration, etc…
The protocol revenue stream goes to the the DAO’s Treasury
1inch Foundation owns and controls the existing front-end
1inch Network DAO
1inch DAO controls all aspects of the Treasury (i.e. the protocol revenue stream)
The DAO has always controlled Instant Governance, but we are transitioning into advanced governance features
The DAO can fund development of their own modules/contracts and deploy them ( alternative front-ends, new network deployments, new API integrations, new smart contract deployments, etc…).
The DAO can signal to the Foundation that they want to see certain changes, but if the Foundation cannot implement these changes for whatever reason, the DAO will need to fund the development of these changes themselves.
All of the things I proposed would be funded by the 1inch Foundation – no funds spent from the Treasury (1inch Foundation will never spend funds from the DAO’s treasury, only the DAO can do that).
Actions taken by the 1inch Foundation do not require a vote since they are an independent entity using their own funds; similarly, the 1inch Foundation cannot force the 1inch DAO to do anything as the DAO is its own decentralized entity with its own funds.
Just as you’ve said before: voting participation needs to be boosted before we start to see proposals make it through the entire governance process. Since everything I suggested is aimed at increasing governance participation in the first place, and requires no DAO Treasury funds, it would be kind of a catch-22 if their implementation required vote. They’d all be gifts from the Foundation to the DAO with the purpose of making the DAO stronger.
Both the 1inch Foundation, and 1inch DAO, are free to signal to the other – if you take issue with any of the suggestions I made please let us know here and we’ll take your feedback into consideration. Dialog is just as important to the governance process as voting is.
I agree that we need to incentivize people to join. Maybe stopping the staking rewards is enough motivation to have people sign up and have a voice and vote. It would be great to see what topics are up for voting in one place, and have people participate. I for one would like to feel part of the 1inch community. I’ve been stacking and staking for the past year and don’t plan on selling soon. @RoundElephant: I like your enthusiam and ideas. we just need to mold a viable structure for the other members to post and like, and vote on suggestions and debate topics.
It may sound wierd but i think that the 1inch hodlers and stakers that Voted in both 1IP-1 AND 1IP-3 ARE ENITITLED for a merkle drop on those addresses to claim . I think they deserve it as they’re active members of 1inch community that care about 1inch for real and where it’s heading .
There are’nt lots of people voted on those snapshots but whoever voted with more than 1 1inch imo must be given a token of appreciation for their early & active participation which other lacked .
Treasury can fund this airdrop + imposing a X - month/week to claim rewards . unclaimed rewards will go back to treasury . This will also create the very 1st example what 1INCH Treasury is capable of & i think will attract more users to forum & snapshot participation .
btw I don’t think it will create any sell pressure because people like these don’t sell as they’re true believers in 1inch and also gov. rewards are gone to .
Important to impose a time constraint to drop because only the active member will get it
Also a pretty good marketing strategy can be deployed alongwith it & from next time randomizing rewards by allocating funds from treasury like if snapshot gets 10million votes then treasury will devote 10000$ of 1inch buyback and reward them to snapsh0t users . We can refine such things with more discussions on it . Ofcourse With later stages we can deploy trading strategy & allocate those trading earnings to fund these snapshot in several ways .
Moreover we can also make rewards in such a way that if a snapshot happened a user will get rewards in 1inch but only claimable on next snapshot . This can create a chain effect
By the way, I assume that the parameters can be adjusted because I cannot determine the best solution.
I also think that the value of a vote should be treated as increasing as the amount of staking increases, but to encourage decentralization, the value of a vote obtained by staking over a certain amount should be capped.
In this case, I think the transition should be similar to the graph above.
I think this. This will reward loyal members and reward their participation. In the end all a DAO is a group of people with a common interest that voice their opinions. Stakers in 1inch goverance should decide how these reward should be structured. this is a good start to begin to hash out what we want collectively.
Hi I am a student of International Business management but new to the DAO community,
I have been staking and following 1 inch almost since the beginning. Mostly interested in staking mostly as back in the day you had to be a whale to do anything related to smart contracts on ETH. When binance chain got implemented I did the rational thing of course, nevertheless, I didn’t got much involved with the DAO as i was using binance wallet and the snapshots is for metamask and other wallets but I decided to jump deeper as The DAO stage 2 was released.
From my point of view as a small investor The DAO incentives are a good option to attract people and participants nevertheless yield for stakeholders is always been a great way for people to receive appreciation to believe in an enterprise, this is one of the things I believe is hurting the price of the token that between many others, the final value we want to see rising Is 1inch that is why we all are investors. As well as that, I am not able to find how much I will get as a small holder during the hard work on the DAO, this has put me off in participating before, I recommend a more clear and easy way to access all info related to incentives with the DAO in the forum, soo people can see what they would get in return. The idea comes from yielding FARMS, people are very involved with new project and forks because they see this massive yield, even if you lose all of it, there is a great chance you’ll make far more, and this attracts people like moths, to attract people It is necessary to show what is in return.
With this in mind, I had an idea, similar to hackathons, to incentivise people in DAO, Bounties for successful proposals. A good Idea that follows through, should be rewarded as such. As in big companies pays salaries for people to manage and incentives to increase productivity and successful planning and results, in DAO people should receive it too.
DAO is a community, People who work the most should be paid as such, and all Stakers should receive yield too, similar to a stakeholders, which are in control of the Company, ergo, us. Not all stakeholders participate in the process of managing but they all got yield for believing in the company, this is, owning shares.
It doesn’t matter how much 1inch you hold you can still create proposals but if you don’t hold too many 1inch the reward is not that daunting, this is my main reason for this Idea, same goes for contributing levels in the forum it should be rewarded to be the main people doing the job.
Even if there is a lack of explanation in this post, I myself unconsciously make up for the lack of explanation, so I may not be able to grasp the lack of explanation that others cannot understand when they see it.
Please let me know if there is anything I don’t understand well.
If you have any questions, please let me know. I may be a bit persistent, but I’ll try to supplement this graph beforehand.
The graph is a graphical representation of the formula in the lower left corner of the figure.
The value of a vote is currently unadjusted, I believe, and if you set it to a maximum of 1X, then on day 0 of staking, it is 0X.
This is an explanation of how the value of a vote is adjusted over the staking period, so that the value of a vote becomes closer to 1X as it moves to the right over the days.
By changing the value of P, you can adjust the speed at which the value approaches 1X.
We also think that we should be able to adjust the number of days that this multiplier starts to increase from zero.
By adding this idea, we can, for example, start at 0.5x on day 0 of staking, or stay at 0x for 30 days.
I like your idea of making participant people vote be more valuable. Therefore in this case it wouldn’t be more rational to set parameters referring at activity in the forum instead of staking? as anyone can stake and unstake quite easily. Something like discord servers, engaging you lvl up and get more privileges. in the forum the more reliable and active the more your votes count. wallet can be linked up to the account.
One thing I left out. for this to make more sense, you have to keep in mind that should be necessary to implement some measures such as credibility and proven hours inverted in the forum so not anyone can come first hand but have the reputation and the hours inverted backing the person, of course all proposals have to follow the same process ( the actual one)
Thank you for giving your opinion.
I see, I was missing that perspective.
If you mean quantifying and adding to the forum activity, then I agree.
For example, let’s say that a is the ratio of my suggestions to the value of votes, and b is the ratio of your suggestions to the value of votes.
The value of a and b should be a percentage that reflects the will of the community while satisfying a+b=1.
If there are more suggestions after this, we can expand the value to c, d, etc., so that a+b+c=1, a+b+c+d=1, etc.
However, if it becomes too complicated, it will be difficult to control the will of the community, so it is necessary to avoid expanding it unnecessarily.