What do we need to do to expand the forum?

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)

1 Like

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.

1 Like

Also, I would like to explain why I want to link staking and voting value.
The reason is that I wanted to add more value to staking in order to make the value of 1inch more stable.

I thought that more people would leave staking after the regular staking rewards were stopped.
I could imagine that my voting power would increase somewhat after the staking rewards were suspended, and it has.

There are definitely people who have stopped staking.
What I didn’t expect, however, is that the number of people who have stopped staking doesn’t seem to be that high at the moment.

Therefore, I think that the community is more united than I thought, and considering that, it might be a good idea to set the ratio of “a” as mentioned above to less than 0.5, so that we can focus more on governance activities.

2 Likes

With this voting value thing you going into technical terms and if you’re not a dev you wouldn’t even know if it’s doable or not . We need 1inch dev intervention in such core topics which is currently really bad

1 Like

I understand what you are saying.
What do you think should be done?

Let’s stop the discussion on this topic here, shall we?

As for me, I think I have achieved my goal because I have been able to submit my ideas to a forum where they can be shared in as concrete a state as possible, instead of keeping them in my head and waiting for them to disappear.

2 Likes

I don’t think people doesn’t want to participate but more dont undestund to how. Fairly the info is quite spread all over the place, i am not so tech savy and I have missed some spots, if you got some links where we have some reports about each proposal and basic governance guidelines for the protocol people would be more interested in participate.

thats sounds very interesting we should bring it to the devs forum and see if its possible
from forum side i believe it would be interesting in thinking of starting in ratios 0:1 0.25:1 0.5:1 and so on lets bring it to the devs!

I love the idea of 1inch deflationary but maybe is too much in expense of governance and should be more of a different value shared between pools and staking and is kind of taking value out of staking. some people don’t feel comfortable with farm and we should understand that

2 Likes

Is the devs forum on discord?

1 Like

i havent used discord ever for 1inch maybe is better in the devs portal of the forum

1 Like

is it possible to link a hole a chat to another one?

1 Like

i have opened a chat for developers :tada:

2 Likes

I like that idea to get people involved. Perhaps we could create Tiers, at least to have different levels of involvment. It’s not the same have 5000 tokens or 10,000 or 500. We could have users differentiate and have a ponderation of weight to the vote and participation. I think this is something that we could think about.

3 Likes

Yes, however.
I think we need a way to simultaneously curb the monopoly of governance due to abundant financial power.
For this reason, I think we should apply the saturation curve I posted the other day to the amount of tokens.
(In my recent post, I applied it to the staking period, but it can be applied to the number of tokens as well.)

To add to the misunderstanding, this saturation curve should not be applied to determining rewards based on the number of tokens, but only to the influence on voting.

By applying the saturation curve, we can determine how much of the governance we want to be distributed, with a maximum of 0.01% voting power per wallet address as an example.

By applying a saturation curve, we can assume that the voting power increases with the amount of tokens up to 0.01%, but does not increase beyond 0.01% no matter how many tokens are held above a certain number.

At the same time, if there is a reward based on the amount of tokens, it would be a good way to attract investors.

1 Like

I don’t think the quantity of tokens should represent the involvement in the project. Is not the same a guy from south America who earns 10 dollars an hour than a rich guy from dubai. nevertheless they can be equally devoted to the project one shouldn’t be treated as less for that. Instead I believe it should be the involvement in the forum what what gives more merits and reliability, therefore more value to the vote.

It should be quantity of token gives you the governance power, if you don’t participate it would limit you voting power and benefits coming with it, this could be implemented with unlocking yields for participants in staking taken from the treasury, i recommend to actually curve the rewards so higher stakers get less rewards but still good enough to want to participate and smaller stakers with high participance greater rewards so it would actually incentivice people to participate and want to join to 1inch, of course all of this off the top of my head and have to be mathematically calculated. this would help with this i believe

For this i believe this would be a great tool that that works perfectly with this.

2 Likes

I’ll be working on a document in the near future that will explain how I’ve organized and integrated the ideas I have.
I’ll post it to the following topic.

I don’t have an idea yet for quantifying forum activity, but because of the extensible mechanism, forum activity quantification can be considered separately.

Since this idea is becoming more and more concrete, I would like to discuss it on the Developer Portal if there is no problem. (I think there is an explanation that the Developer Portal is a place to talk about the 1inch API, so if the administrator points this out to you, let’s find the best place to discuss it again.)

3 Likes

looking forward to it :smiley:

1 Like

that idea about the curve is interested. Ideally it would be best to have people who have tokens and also who participate and are active. I hadn’t seen it as clearly before. This debate is good, to define where we want to go. I’d also like to have input from the dev team or the group mods. How would that be possible?

1 Like

I think 1 better idea is to login to forum via MetaMask account and assign activity to that particular blockchain address + we can also use data of on chain metrics to gauge the activity that address has done . Like how long he staked , how much he used 1inch dex , how many times he participated in snapshots , provided any Liquidity to pools , how many times he votedon stage - 2 etc. - We can assign a score based on these activity and lvl up the user .
once a user levelled up to a significant level and delegated by other community members he’ll be auto liable for rewards & stuff

===========

I’ve read most of comments and i think for governance discussion in forum is hindered by the forum itself . What i want to say is that the forum structure is a bit outdated . We need a custom made forum like structure where topics do not get lost . Important points of other members inside a discussion get pinned just like telegram has a pinned feature in group . Also a heat map where a point if made gets absolute community exposure .

What i’m trying to convey is that 1inch and i think other projects might need a specialized forum which is specially designed specifically for DAO purposes

2 Likes

I think so too, 1 thing to add is to be able to use all wallets available on DEX in forum, and forum participation have to give higher rewards that DEX participation. We all need the DEX but not many want to use the forum.

Agree 100%

1 Like

Seems like this would be a proposal with a decent amount of support. The governance docs should be live soon, but we’ve updated the 1inch DAO Governance Process post with the most current information.

Next step would be proceeding to Phase-2 and totaling fleshing this proposal out:

  • The amount dropped

  • How the drop will be calculated (flat drop to each address? proportional to amount staked? etc…?)

  • The total cost to the Treasury

  • Which chains are eligible

  • Which addresses are eligible (minimum amount staked?)

  • Etc…

Let me know if you require any assistance during this process.

3 Likes

This one is the most Interesting Question . This might sound crazy or what but how about we allocate Treasury funds to buy 1inch = to the amount of 1inch Voted .

Then use those funds and airdrop each address proportionally to the amount they voted or staked then whatever is left out of those funds will either be burned or sent back to treasury OR maybe distributed evenly again to all the addresses that voted in Both 1IPs [I’ll let the team/vote decide the lower limit to exclude]

BTW this Allocated fund for rewards must not use more than 1 - 5% of Treasury PER snapshot : )

Fair & Square . Plain & Simple

All Chains but Single Address Single Claim

So [ Total Snpashot Votes 1IP1 & 3 ] 93.66k + 42.42k = 136.18K < 5% of Treasury Funds (3.5M) [ If no other snapshot happened in that month else 1% treasury fund allocation ] = Approved


In Short ,

Approve 5% of Treasury Fund [If no other in that month Happened] → Distribute Proportional to their Votes per 1IP → Anything Left Distribute Evenly to all → These Rewards Claimable on next snapshot → 10 Day window given to claim else revert funds back to treasury

1 Like