During the param debates, the participants analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of various settings for the Tao voting delegate system. This is the proposal on which participants found consensus during the three meetings.
Note 1: The following parameters are meant to be applied only to financial proposals below a certain value (TBD). Participants in the debates believe that structural changes, such as those applied to the governance model, to the charter, or financial proposal requiring conspicuous amounts of funds, should follow more stringent standards, such higher quorum and support required thresholds.
Note 2: the third debate had a low number of participants.
Note 3: the present proposal is just one among the proposals that people can vote for by following this link - vote will end on Monday. This voting round itself is not binding in any case, but will only express the sentiment of the Community. The final decision will be made and ratified by the ANT holders.
The Debate Proposal:
Support Required: a qualified majority (4/7 = 57%): because a larger majority could mean less reasons to argue with the outcomes of the proposal, and the difficulty to reach the threshold may also lead to better proposals. At the same time 57% shouldn’t be a figure high enough to block our workflow.
Quorum: 0.5% as a starting value. Although we all hope that the delegate voting system will lead to broader participation, given the trend of past voting rounds we believe it is unwise to set values that we might be unable to achieve and thus fall into a stalemate. Our suggestion is to start low and increase the quorum over time in line with the treasury transfer and with the data collected from the first series of ballots.
Vote duration: participants believe that 7 days are enough for voting, provided that we keep at least two weeks of forum discussion before voting.
Delegate voting period: 3 days. Considering that the delegates with the most voting power will be paid to carry out their function, it is lecit to demand some celerity in casting their votes. Furthermore, this would leave three days for people who disagree with their delegate position to undelegate their tokens.
Quite ending period: 1 day. A sufficient time to avoid last-minute upheavals in the voting outcome.
Quite ending extension: 3 days. In case the swing falls on the weekend, it is good to have enough time for everyone to have returned to work and, in case, try to attract more support if they are not happy with the outcome.
(from debate 3) EXECUTION DELAY: 3 days, in order to grant a fair amount of time to people who want to rage quit in disagreement with the voting outcome, but not too long to slow down the process excessively
(from debate 3) PROPOSAL DEPOSIT: 1024 ANT. A relatively low value not to discourage the creation of new proposals. However, participants shared the idea that this parameter should be set as a percentage to the amount of funds requested (suggested value: 5%)
(from debate 3) CHALLENGE DEPOSIT: 128 ANT. Participants believe that money shouldn’t be an obstacle for anyone to challenge a proposal
(from debate 3) SETTLEMENT PERIOD: Participants believe that 5 days are enough to take a shared decision, and not too many to slow down the entire process.
Following the links below, you can go through the reasoning that led us to these params:
Param debate 1: Param Debate 1, Online Whiteboard for Visual Collaboration (miro.com)
Param debate 2: Param Debate 2, Online Whiteboard for Visual Collaboration (miro.com)
Param debate 3: Param Debate 3, Online Whiteboard for Visual Collaboration (miro.com)