What good is a pass vote if it’s mandatory? That’s equivalent to abolishing quorum isn’t it?
We are talking about the Escape Vote of Liquidity Baking, there is no quorum involved in this vote at the moment, no quorum involved in the Ithaca proposal either, and no quorum involved in the current design of the change I am working on. The only mention of a quorum at this stage is a suggestion in the discussion of the merge request.
We’re only going to get once a no-LB choice this voting round based on super majority. Or devs will inject a no-LB proposal every 3 months?
This escape hatch is again not 80% super majority based, is based on 50%. And devs will want us to keep making decisions on a rigged escape hatch. Is super rigged, why they don’t lower it to 20% to signal escape hatch to be exactly like with our main on-chain governance??
This is rigged, threshold should be 20% to signal de escape hatch, to mimic our on-chain governance based on 80%.
You are making it, so If 5001 rolls voted no, 5000 voted yes, the rest passed, lb disabled
Should be If 2001 rolls voted no, 7999 voted yes, the rest passed, lb disabled
Even for an emergency, it will be so hard to reach the 50% of rolls signaling to disable LB.
The 80% supermajority is for changing the protocol. Once a feature is in the protocol, removing it is a change so it requires a 80% supermajority against the feature.
1 Like
Quick question,
So with this new mechanic, if 43% of the bakers choose to “pass” on the escape hatch(say exchanges and TF/DLS for example). That leaves 57% are left to vote yay or nay, so the % of bakers to use the escape hatch would be 50% of those 57%, equaling 28.5% of all bakers would need to vote “nay” on the escape hatch to remove LB?
example:
43% pass
29% yay
28% nay
= LB continues
43% pass
27% yay
29% nay
= LB stops (until the % changes)
Is that what you are looking to implement? Or are you simply making it
43% pass
50.5% nay
6.5% yay
= LB stops
43% pass
49% nay
8% yay
= LB continues
The former. In the latter case voting “pass” has the same effect as voting “yay” so it is not a new option.
2 Likes
That’s what I thought. Just clarifying in case people achem misinterpret cough wakenbake cough
If 40% vote pass, 31% votes yay, and 29% votes nay = LB continues.
If 40% vote pass, 29% votes yay and 31% votes nay = LB disabled.
The threshold between yay and nay battle is 50%, is super high, it should be 20% to disable LB like in the main on-chain governance. Example:
40% votes pass, 60% votes nay or yay.
60% x 0.2 (20%) = 12%
If 40% vote pass, 49% votes yay and 11% votes nay = LB continues
If 40% vote pass, 48% votes yay and 12% votes nay = LB is disabled.
“The threshold between yay and nay battle is 50%, is super high, it should be 20% to disable LB like in the main on-chain governance”
It isn’t super high, and no, it shouldn’t be. Sorry.
In first stage to elect winning proposal, 50% is also used. U choose stage u like.
U just want that cuz it suits you. I want Bugatti Veyron.
1 Like
Fair point, but the next stages have an 80% filter no? Which make our governance more secure cause more consensus.
This plan sounds very well thought out to me. I talked to our delegates and a few few other community members and it seems fair and rather ingenious.
I went ahead and summed it up here for anyone who doesn’t quite understand quorum and super quorum, etc.
so say we have 3 proposals(all with tenderbake):
usdtz
tzbtc
no LB
tzbtc passes the proposal phase and is the only one to go to exploration(dang, we tried).
This time, tzbtc/ithica passes exploration with the following %:
85% yay, 15% nay
However, some people who don’t like LB also voted YAY for Ithica(everyone wants Tenderbake!), there is one more shot with better chances.
Lets assume all bakers who "passed during the governance cycle also “pass” voting for the escape hatch(just for example).
that means for the escape hatch we have:
70% running escape hatch with NAY
30% running with YAY
LB flow stops!
if you include the bakers that “passed” the full % of votes would look like this:
43% “pass” voters. 57% yay or nay.
NO-LB voters:
.7*.57 = 40% (rounded up)
LB YAY :
.3*.57 = 17% (rounded down)
You can see here with 43% votes passing, we would only need about 28% all bakers to vote for the escape hatch, which is less than Ithica (it would have been at 33%). If you count Ithica’s exploration period passing % of It also forces more bakers to make a decision and as well as gets them accustomed to the new polling tool. A tool that would be very useful in getting bakers to voice their opinion so our decentralized network can be better coordinated in the future.
Fully agree with rafoo.
In Tezos it requires 80% in favour to change status quo. LB is currently part of status quo. End of story.
Okay, I’ll answer you why I used the word “we”. I remind you WE ARE in a collectivist blockchain, where we collectively decide stuff, we collectively decide how much to tax our citizen, and we also collectively decide how to spend the tax money for him. If the reality was other, If tezos was an individualist blockchain, where everything is funded with private money, I wouldn’t even need to use the word “WE”. But the reality is other no? You made tezos a collectivist blockchian which is the reason it will most likely fail. I tried to convince you to make it more individualistic, but you want collectivism no matter what.
It is very hypocritical of you, to defend the use of TF money as private money whenever is suits you, and to defend the use of TAX money whenever it suits you.
I recommend you to read more Ayn Rand books, so you can understand fully objectivism, because clearly you haven’t read a single book.
This sounds great and a template that could be used for similar future features (or rather “constants”, if I understood Arthur’s comment correctly). Very bullish on this and for the constructive attitude from Nomadic Labs.
2 Likes
