Please lets discusse…
IMO, for Moonbeam to be decentralized, it is not necessary to outsource every decision to a community. i’d rather entrust these decisions to the grant committee… however, in order for this to work effectively, we as a community need to define a clearly defined system and rules for how it should work, ensuring transparency. this should allow the community to receive regular updates on grant recipients, their merits and other relevant info. I have concerns that relying solely on the votes of the community and whales may hinder development and lead to disputes. I think it is important that everyone has equal opportunities to receive funding depending on the achievement of certain milestones. on this note, I appreciate Bruno’s work on the soulbound NFT system, which grants greater voting power to active community members, which seems to be a promising approach
It is super hard to convince people to go onto yet another platform for the voting.
People don’t get the difference between onchain gov and snapshot voting.
Cooking up participation for governance is already super hard and getting them to the snaps is even harder.
One of the issues with the snapshot mechanism is that people can change their vote at the last minute. I know it’s a reality we must deal with for now. But in the future, we should explore solutions where votes are locked.
Should there be someone from the Moonbeam team that checks in on the progress of grant recipients regularly? This could also work for post-grant progress reporting. That way, the community is consistently informed on the progress of different projects.
This can also happen with on chain vote, you can revote, to add, remove tokens of conviction and/or change the vote
Is there any way to prevent people from changing their votes once it is cast?
The truth is that I am against this, usually people can be convinced with good arguments and/or with new information, it can change the opinion of those who vote
flexibility in this case (at least on-chain) I see it as something positive
I think people should be allowed to change their minds, as well. I could see a scenario where new information comes to light during a voting period that would make someone want to change their support.
While I personally don’t like a tactic where voting is used to give a false impression of support only to change it at the last minute, the fact is that if everyone else voted with their true intentions, the tactic would be much less impactful.
True, it makes sense. It’s a case where the positives are more significant than the potential negatives.
It’s hard to convince people to vote on yet another platform. Especially when they have their big stash of coins in cold storage and usually operate with proxy keys to vote and delegate it’s in some cases impossible to vote on snapshot because your cold storage becomes a hot wallet to sign a message? That isn’t optimal.
But the bigger issue is that the community is not uniform. If we manage to drum up the support from everyone we know we might get to 2-3 million GLMR voting power. We are 10 of the most active community members. In contrast Arrington has 18 million GLMR in their snapshot voting wallet.
So why don’t we ask Arrington how they would like to distribute the grants across their investments?
This would save time for those guys who write the proposals. Probably weeks if not months.
This would also save time for those who setup the voting, decide on the rules and deal with hiccups in weekend long zoom calls and meetings.
This would save my time as I need about a day to read through the proposals and digest them to be able to make an informed decision to make a vote.
My vote is meaningless. So is everybody else’s. The only thing that matters is how Arrington feels about it. So let’s just task them with figuring it out by themselves and spend our time on things we can actually have a positive impact on.
That’s a matter of respect isn’t it? Respecting everyones time, love, dedication.
Let me correct even with 90+ voters tot 5 m vote you cant make it, so i agree with you we can save lot of times making this whole process something off chain could save time and resource.
Leaving this Miro file that i started to build and will keep adding more information over time Miro | Online Whiteboard for Visual Collaboration
I think there is some confusion, some of the team or whoever was tht switched vote last min also to make the vote hung.
And actually ended hung.