Conviction Funding community grants pilot

ANT snapshot - A snapshot of ANT balances will be taken and used to determine votable ANT per address during the pilot. The snapshot will occur at block 10724590 or approximately Wednesday, August 26, 12pm UTC. Be sure to have your ANT in your preferred address by the snapshot. Because of the snapshot, you are free to do whatever you like with your ANT after the snapshot and still retain the voting power from the snapshot.

Do I have to pay gas to vote on proposals? Is it possible to vote on proposals via MyCrypto? If I move ANT after the snapshot i will still be able to vote but only with this address or can i somehow move the votable ANT ? Is it possible that you hold ANT in address A but you will receive the votable ANT in address B?

Conviction accrual - Once a vote is cast, the token-weighted balance adds conviction potential to the proposal with conviction accruing over time as tokens are held . The time-based accumulation forces voters to prioritize where they place their conviction. Proposals are approved once their conviction accrual level meets the approval threshold .

Is it possible to create a combination of conviction voting and quadratic voting? So that your stake get more voting power the longer you stake but with a negative exponential curve. the more you stake to one proposal the less power each stake token will have. This would incentivize users to stake to more proposals to increase their voting power. Also it would make the voting more democratic because multiple small votes (token stakes) have more influence than few big votes. The problem is that a user can just split her tokens into multiple accounts and increase the voting power this way. quadratic voting just makes sense in combination with unique IDs. Perhaps users with a verified brightID can activate quadratic voting. So that small stakes in combination with a brightID have more voting power. For example 1 token stake on a proposal gives you 10 voting power, 2 stake gives you 9 power, 3 gives you 8. So if you stake 3 tokens you have a voting power of 27. This would give small stakers more voting power and make the governance more democratic.

Threshold calculation - The approval threshold for a proposal depends on its budget in proportion to the treasury funds. Therefore, proposals with larger budgets require more conviction to pass than smaller budgets. As proposals are approved, and the treasury depletes, all proposals’ approval threshold will increase , requiring more conviction to pass.

Would it make sense to create multiple small Conviction Funding DAOs with specific funding purposes (funding categories) to value the funding money more? This way users can choose categories they are more interested in and specialize on those to vote one. This would make the distribution of funding more efficient and less wasteful, cause the approval threshold would be higher because the budget would be split up in smaller budgets (Conviction Funding DAOs). So the Snapshot is taken and you get votable ANT which you 1. use to upvote the different Conviction Funding DAOs (conviction voting on DAOs) In return you get voting tokens in those DAOs which you can use in the 2. step to vote on the Conviction Funding DAO specific proposals. The longer you stake your voting tokens to 1. the Conviction Funding DAO the more voting power (conviction) you get and the longer you stake to 2. Conviction Funding DAO specific proposals the more voting power (conviction) you accumulate as well.

Approvals - Upon approval, the payout process is initiated automatically so work can begin as soon as possible. If a proposer fails to deliver, their reputation in the community will diminish and likely lack support for future proposals.

Why not implement something like time-released-payments? In this way people can check wether the proposal is on track with their milestones/timeline and if not they can hold the next payment unit the proposal is on track again.

2 Likes

Yeah you will need to pay gas, someone could make an initiative to reimburse gas for participants through the program though, but there are currently no plans for the Aragon Association to do it.

There will be an interface provided that supports standard web3 providers including metamask and wallet connect. It would be possible to vote via mycrypto by interacting with the contract abi directly.

The snapshotted ANT balance will not be transferrable, you can move your ANT but you will need to use the account that had ANT at the snapshot in order to vote.

The snapshot is being produced using the MiniMe clone token function, so there is no need to opt-in, but also no way to signal for a different address to be used.

Is it possible to create a combination of conviction voting and quadratic voting? So that your stake get more voting power the longer you stake but with a negative exponential curve. the more you stake to one proposal the less power each stake token will have. This would incentivize users to stake to more proposals to increase their voting power. Also it would make the voting more democratic because multiple small votes (token stakes) have more influence than few big votes. The problem is that a user can just split her tokens into multiple accounts and increase the voting power this way. quadratic voting just makes sense in combination with unique IDs. Perhaps users with a verified brightID can activate quadratic voting. So that small stakes in combination with a brightID have more voting power. For example 1 token stake on a proposal gives you 10 voting power, 2 stake gives you 9 power, 3 gives you 8. So if you stake 3 tokens you have a voting power of 27. This would give small stakers more voting power and make the governance more democratic.

Yes! Quadratic conviction voting is definitely possible and something that 1Hive is exploring in combination with brightid for sybil resistance, but the version used for this pilot won’t have that functionality.

Would it make sense to create multiple small Conviction Funding DAOs with specific funding purposes (funding categories) to value the funding money more? This way users can choose categories they are more interested in and specialize on those to vote one. This would make the distribution of funding more efficient and less wasteful, cause the approval threshold would be higher because the budget would be split up in smaller budgets (Conviction Funding DAOs). So the Snapshot is taken and you get votable ANT which you 1. use to upvote the different Conviction Funding DAOs (conviction voting on DAOs) In return you get voting tokens in those DAOs which you can use in the 2. step to vote on the Conviction Funding DAO specific proposals. The longer you stake your voting tokens to 1. the Conviction Funding DAO the more voting power (conviction) you get and the longer you stake to 2. Conviction Funding DAO specific proposals the more voting power (conviction) you accumulate as well.

Certainly worth exploring, I expect we will learn a lot from the dynamics of this initial pilot!

Why not implement something like time-released-payments? In this way people can check wether the proposal is on track with their milestones/timeline and if not they can hold the next payment unit the proposal is on track again.

I would love to see this! hope someone makes a proposal to build a simple escrow system that proposers could use rather than requesting funds entirely up front. It could even use Aragon Court as a dispute resolution mechanism in case the proposer feels like they have delivered on their milestones but a community member does not.

2 Likes

I think there are lots of ANT on cold wallets / hardware wallets. I can imagine if you give those the option to get voting tokens on a separate hot wallet they are more likely to vote.

will the Aragon Network votes in the future be on Aragon Chain ?

trustswap.org did such a tool. They could create an Aragon App to get more users. Kleros could also create an Aragon App. I think there are lots of projects which could benefit from creating an Aragon app.

The more proposal passes the less ANT are in the fund and the higher the conviction has to be so that the proposal pass.

  • Do I have to make sure that I publish my proposal as early as possible to increase the probability to pass?
  • Does the conviction amount automatically adjust for all ongoing proposals as soon as a proposal passes?
  • What does for example 14% conviction means? How much ANT is needed to pass a proposal which requests 700 ANT from a fund with 3900 ANT?

In this pilot, since there wont be any additional funding put into the pot, there is indeed an advantage in making proposals and having them be considered earlier when more funds are available.

In future iterations it may make sense to add funds to the pot over time as a better approximation of funding via fees or issuance.

Yes, the threshold is dynamic and depends on the proportion funds requested out of the available treasury.

Conviction accrues over time until it reaches a maximum, in the pilot this has a ~3 day half life, so you accrue 50% of the maximum conviction for your vote in 3 days, then another 50% after another 3 days (~75% at that point), and so on. The maximum conviction you will reach depends on the total active stake, so if you are voting with 14% of the active stake, you will eventually reach 14% conviction but it may take a very long time due to the exponential decay associated with the half life. This is also dynamic, so if more people are start actively supporting proposals, your conviction will represent smaller proportion of the active stake.

Because it is a dynamic system its difficult to answer how much ANT is needed to reach a specific threshold, the interface will give you projection of you max conviction based on an amount at that time, but the other variables may change as other people interact with the system.

If you want a seriously deep dive into how the system works, we worked with Blockscience to create a cadCAD model, which you can find here: https://github.com/BlockScience/Aragon_Conviction_Voting

1 Like

thank you very much.

So when i go here https://conviction.aragon.org/#/ I see that 195,862.62 ANT are active. So you could dynamically display the amount of ANT needed to pass the proposal. The standard assumption is that you stake today until the end of the conviction voting or if no time limit than infinite staking. So if the conviction funding last for another 30 days and there are 195,862.62 ANT active then the ANT you need to pass the proposal is ? ANT. Could this be done? It would make it much clearer for voters.