At least 1 keyholder never voted … why? did they forget? was there technical issues? did they not find any of the projects appealing?
The structure of the people managing keys for said entity changed at the last minute, and the process was re-reviewed by their legal team to ensure they could participate as expected. They were cleared to do so and should be voting to confirm the transfer on-chain, but unfortunately missed the first poll.
Also keep in mind this is voluntary extra work for everyone involved. We will however continue improving the process until ideally handing it off to the community properly, and do our best to communicate as much as possible where it makes sense.
I think 2 holders only voted for 1 project each. Where the holders fully aware they could vote for many? Lots of the other projects had very positive feedback on their Agora threads … where these not taken into account?
Yes, all signers were aware they can vote for multiple projects. Three signers voted for 2 projects each, one signer voted for 1. Everything was taken into account, but unfortunately as mentioned above, multiple entities involved cannot currently approve transfers involving possible sanctions. Two other proposals may possibly have passed if not for this issue. While not ideal, we suspect that the community would dislike an extensive KYC/AML/Sanction Screening process for every proposal even more.
Every round and issue will be taken into account to hopefully improve the process in further iterations.
The display of the votes was quite odd. I didn’t know what 1.583333333333333 TED towards 1 project means.
This is unique to the way that we’re using off-chain polls for this DAO. In most cases for other DAOs, the goal would be for only one option to ‘win’ the poll, and voters are able to split their voting power among multiple options if they support more than one. For the Ecosystem DAO, we’re using this in a different way, and the token split is irrelevant. Any project that receives 3 or more -voters- is approved, so the amount of tokens for each proposal can be ignored. This was mentioned in previous communications.
The tool itself should be able to show who voted for what
It does show this, if you click the number of votes at the bottom. We already have a feature request in to make it more obvious how to view this data. Although most of the addresses involved are not yet public, regarding which entity they belong to.
We also need to see some improvements to the homebase tool as well (not sure who owns that).
The Homebase team welcomes feedback in their Discord: Homebase