Conviction voting a really cool voting mechanism that allows voters to continuously signal preferences. Jeff Emmett outlines the concept and makes a persuasive argument for conviction voting in this article (seriously it is an amazing read it blew my mind )
@GriffGreen also gives a great explanation with a real-world example of a trash collecting DAO in this video (skip to 11 min in)
Commons Stack are planning to build out an implementation as part of their suite of tools of commons biased organisations however they have other priorities before they get around to it. Even though the ANV process isn’t well suited to continuous voting, Aragon organisations could make extensive use of it.
Continuing from
It would be great to hear from some flock members as to what they think about either collaborating with commons stack or building out a separate implementation
I actually think Conviction Voting could be highly useful as a potential replacement to the Finance track of the ANV process. Conviction Voting has a dynamic threshold that changes the “convicition” requirement depending on the amount of funds requested for a proposal relative to the amount of funds currently available in a funding pool. Early on I think it would make sense to make a separate Conviction Voting org and then fund that org similar to how we fund the the AGP10 DAO (though I think it would make sense for us to fund CV org with an order of magnitude more funding )
It would also allow for proposals to be submitted at any time, making us less dependent on the the 3 month ANV cycle and I think result in a much more continuous and healthy engagement cycle among the community.
Also the work that Commons Stack (Giveth and Block Science too) are doing on the research front is really excellent and I would love to see Aragon help realize the vision on the implementation side.
I would love to see an AGP (probably a proclamation one? Or even a flock?? IDK…) asking the AN to formally commit to support the Commons Stack, not in next ANV as we are too close to it already (and the Commons Stack is still on an early stage), but something might be properly formulated for the following one!(?) I’d guess @GriffGreen is already having a thought on this, curious about your view on it.
What sort of commitment do you have in mind? I think its fairly easy to say we want to support specific initiatives that are aligned between Aragon and Commons stack, such as an implementation of Conviction Voting for Aragon, Or to say we want to build additional features/modules in Aragon fundraising to so that the functionality of an Augmented Bonding curve would be a matter of configuration.
I think it might also be interesting to support apps which do not necessarily use the Aragon client directly (or perhaps just hide the sidebar), allowing for more flexibility in creating full user experiences (fwiw this is an initiative that @stellarmagnet and Autark have been and continue to work towards). This would make it easier for a project like Commons Stack to create a portal with a custom interface which interacts with multiple Aragon apps/components.
Perhaps thinking about it the other way around would be helpful. What is it that Commons Stack would need from Aragon in order for them to more effectively leverage our infrastructure?
What about using CV for the AGP Process? I think to have voting periods like the each quarter there is a AGP voting is nice because then I have a timeperiod I know so I can better adjust to it like voting for president. But during the time till the president (AGP) vote there is the AGP process. (Pre-Proposal --> Draft -->Final Proposal ) and this process could be more transparent and engaging through CV.
But I don’t get CV completely. How would this ongoing voting work concrete? Is it like I see a pre-proposal that i like and then i press a button which says stake your ANT behind it and then i can chose between 0% - 100%. And when the pre-proposal goes to the Draft then I can change the stake based on my satisfaction with the draft ?
I really would have liked to see commons stack request funding directly via the AGP process as it would have given the Aragon community a chance to get involved. Regardless I’m sure there will be some cooperation between the two given the close ties with Giveth
Funnily enough, we hope to bring funding into the Aragon ecosystem for a change. We aren’t committing to any one vender to build out our designs, but obviously Aragon Black is ahead of the “curve” when it comes to building the first part of the Commons Stack.
We expect to produce a specification and request quotes from potential venders to build out our Augmented Bonding Curve and Conviction Voting… At the Top of the list for venders are Aragon Black, Autark and Level K… In fact we already got preliminary… sort of back of the envelope, quotes from Level K and Aragon Black. But there is the real world issues of who has time to work on these things so we will see.
I will say that because the Conviction Voting model is relatively experimental, and very few of the components exist already (unlike the token bonding curve) our current thinking is that starting out by making it an AragonApp might be a bit much for this unproven governance module… building the first CV as a stand alone smart contract (probably borrowing patterns like the ACL and Upgradability), and plugging it into the Aragon Fundraising App would be a leaner approach. Then we can iterate on that set up 2 or 3 times to tweak the designs, learn a lot and get it right, and then launch the effort for a full fledged Aragon App once we feel the idea is proven and the unknown flaws are exposed and dealt with.
Of course, if there is already an effort to build out some of the underlying components needed for uses within the Aragon ecosystem, this could change. I would have said the same for the Token Bonding Curve but the fundraising app is looking sexy AF! And looking at Autark’s Flock proposal, there might be some core componants coming thru the pipeline that could make it make sense!
Perhaps using aragonOS and making it an AragonApp (at the contract level) makes sense even if initially it does not make sense to implement the frontend as an Aragon app that lives in the Aragon Client? Would potentially save some headache and you would benefit from using those components which are already audited and atleast somewhat battle tested.
Probably still too early to get into low level design decisions like that, but feels like it could make sense.
That is fantastic! And for sure, leveraging AragonOS seems like a win-win. Even if you guys are not implementing a UI, it makes it easier for others to experiment with
)
)
