DAO Votes: How should they be used

Hi all,

Herewith a new topic from a relatively irrelevant farmer about the use of the DAO votes. I have followed the DAO votes for the last 1.5 years and, of course, voted on several proposals. I don’t think using DAO votes is the most efficiënt but I understand why it is used. Still, there have been many times where I didn’t really like the approach. A couple of thoughts on this:

Unnecessary votes
Today 2 new proposals came out, about the farmerbot minting and a security update/fix. I really don’t see why these should be voted on. If the minting code is not working properly or security needs an update for any reason, why would a vote be required? Why should anyone vote against patching bugs or necessary updates? There has not been a single ‘no’ vote on both. DAO votes here just cause unnecessary delays. Similarly, I don’t think we should vote on every 3.8->3.9->3.10 upgrade. I mean, I would assume a lot of people (like me) would think “if the developers/core team members think it is good to upgrade, who am I to go against that, they have probably thought this through”.

Minting economics - more interaction
There have been a few votes on this about a year ago. The idea was to adjust the (increased) default token price in rewards calculation, but as the price decreased this never happened. I believe 2 votes were held, concluding to leave the rewards the same. But the proposal was like; should we keep our current model, yes or no. Or maybe ‘should we increase yes or no’. But there are so many options here, that would have made a huge impact. What about a monthly DAO vote on this default TFT price for the next month, with 5-10 options rather than 1? So then we will vote on whether it would remain 0.08, or maybe 0.12/0.06/0.04/0.02/0.01 or whatever. Maybe even some linear declining trendline, starting from a certain point. Just an idea to keep the economics related to market demand.
Otherwise, maybe restrict the addition of new nodes based on some number related to current cpu utilisation.

There has been much discussion about the Foldit vote, and I will not share my opinion on that here. Regarding the DAO vote, I do think it would be better to refrain from individual assessments but rather vote on a set of rules, to be applied to anyone. So vote on the concept of a solution provider, and not have votes for Zonaris, Foldit and anyone that comes after individually.
Zooming out even further, maybe have DAO votes on roadmap topics. In case there are spare resources, what should they be focussed on regarding the different projects (e.g. ourphone, gpu support?).

Bias - keep in mind
Here I’m specifically referring to the super green farming vote. There are so many reasons to not do this, it is just not feasible to do this in a way that is fraudproof, efficient and fair in all situations. Still, the proposal was accepted. I can only imagine that a bunch of farmers thought “Hey, I have solar panels (or any other way to benefit from this), maybe I can get more TFT by voting yes”. People are more inclined to vote on things that could be directly relevant to them, and less inclined to vote at all otherwise. Has it ever occured that a proposal has been declined (not due to number of votes)?

That’s it for now. :slight_smile:


Thanks @jvonline01 for this great feedback. Lots of good points.

I really like the idea to “vote on a set of rules” and to “vote on the concept of a solution provider”.
What you propose here is a great way to better organize the DAO, and of course, the program of solution provider itself. There is an ongoing draft to produce guidelines for the solution provider program here. I think this goes well with what you propose here.

I would say that you are far from an irrelevant farmer. Your points here are much relevant.
The spirit of ThreeFold is exactly to garner the ideas and strength of its many members to produce a whole bigger than the sum of its parts.

If only more farmers could speak their mind like you did, the whole forum would become, I think, much more relevant!


Restricting the addition of more capacity is an idea I have had too. On the other hand, assuming token price is only linked to utilization, this does happen through the token price incentivizing the creation of more nodes or not. Of course token price is more complicated than that.

1 Like