A reasonable nudge to encourage participation in voting would be to mark non voting bakers as inactive, causing them to lose all baking and endorsement rights for 5 cycles following a vote in case of non participation. Not as punitive as slashing, sensible given that not voting does indicate inactivity.
Good idea! Would you apply it to all types of voting?
Doesn’t make sense for the proposal phase, but makes sense for the testing vote and activation vote.
Fully agree on this. Love it!
i would support this. good idea.
We definitely support this idea for the testing vote and activation vote. Please include it in the next amendment.
+1 for implementing this
At TQuorum NY someone asked @adrian if people could be rewarded with XTZ for voting. He responded saying that that would lead to undiscerning people voting just to get paid, and not taking their votes seriously, which would corrupt the outcomes.
I agreed with that, it made sense. In my mind, I imagine a bunch of bakers who otherwise didn’t care about voting, didn’t pay attention, seeing voting was about to close and thinking “Oh crap! Effectively, I’ll lose money if I don’t vote” and in the last minute just voting, in any direction, blindly saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ without even knowing what the vote was.
Likewise, wouldn’t this method have the same potential problem — with bakers thinking: “I’ll be losing money if I don’t vote, so I’ll just pick something, anything!”?
I am curious though how exchanges would respond to this because in my conversations with the bigger ones they vehemently said that they definitely want to be governance agnostic; to abstain from voting.
TF also sees itself as a neutral force in governance but always participates in votes by voting pass.
Exchanges can learn to vote ‘pass’ and still remain ‘governance agnostic’. That’s also true for bakers who don’t have an opinion or interest in voting.