Person in charge of decentralized voting simply must not deny the decision of hundreds of people. Do we want to move to pure DAO in the smart contract so that personal feelings after the vote does not have the effect?
How come one person can overrule the decision of majority?
I will try. But how is it possible that you are the only one who read the proposal in different way, while everybody here or reddit or discord reads it from the day 1 as the grant of 32k algos to vote coin dao?
In my point of view scholtz requested a grant to get the algos the same as every other proposal requested the grant to get the algos. Yes, i read it that the AF gives basically free money to the Vote Coin DAO, and the reasoning there is just the better quotes for swapping. Perhaps if AF would pay directly the algos for everybody who swaps the compensation for better quotes it might visible, however with providing liquidity to the pools it is long term sustainable solution. I understand scholtz frustration from the AF after the pact stopped completely the targeted defi rewards.
I also agree that the direct token purchases of tokens should be against the rules. In this very proposal they want to buy for algos the GoBTC for 8k algos… why should we support the gomint project from the grant… right?
But the rules were set and I see that AF changed the rules last week. Every lawyer will confirm you that its not possible to apply rules in retroactive manner.
Perhaps we should speak about the root cause of the issue which was targeted defi rewards if I read the thread correctly. How come the algorand foundation did not intervene? Here we are speaking about 32k algos, but the pact fi, gomint, xbacked and meld gold have millions of algos and they distribute it in the way that they benefit themselves.
I have an idea. What if this proposal is not prefunded, and Vote Coin DAO has to put its own algos to the the liquidity for the 3 months. This way the vote coin dao will bear the risk of the assets in the proposal go to zero, there will be clear deliverability and after the 3 months the vote coin dao receives the 32k algos from the foundation.
As I wrote above, there is uncertainty on how to proceed because this kind of proposal was not contemplated, I am just trying to honor the vote and at the same time understand what is the fair thing to do by having a discussion here. In my opinion giving away 32k algos is not a good use, full stop.
I don’t really understand why we should give at the end 32k Algo. In my opinion honoring the grant of “increasing the liquidity” (as stated in the Grant Proposal) would be something very easy:
The Foundation puts 32k Algo in 4 AMM pools for 3 months. After 3 months the Foundation retrieve the Algo and put them back to the xGov funds. What do you think @SGen and @scholtz?
Because all other proposal for some product or service receives algos. You created grants program and not lending program. Whole community understands this and they casted the vote in the onchain voting.
I dont agree. Let me repeat, we have not requested the funds to be borrowed. We have requested funds to be deposited to vote coin dao, and we dedicated its purpose. We provide the service to whole algorand ecosystem by making the quotes between major swaps better.
And btw we are providing incentivization for better swaps for years now, and we have zero algos in return. When will algorand foundation start to appriciate what the vote coin project is doing?
I told myself that i’ll stay out of this particular topic but cmmon… give the man his money, take the L and move on.
ARC is updated now, so this scenario can’t happen again. So you can consider the 32k algos a price paid to improve the system.
Trying to revoke a on-chain passed vote for sake of 32k algo (when MILIONS of algos are being thrown with very little oversight at tdr/defi) sets a very dangerous precendent and has way more dowsnides than upsides…
The ammount of people involved in this and billable hours to sort this out will or has already surpassed the value of this grant imo.
It’s not fair with xgovs to not honor their decision unless xgovs were never meant to make decisions and this was clearly stated (definitely wasn’t clear to me).
Was this proposal terrible? Yes
Was the foresight of what can be submitted as an xGov terrible? Yes
Should Ludo get his money for this terrible proposal due to the lack of foresight from xGov? Yes
Should we be setting the precedence that passed proposals can be overridden? No
Are expert governors experts? No
@Adri I think ludo should be given the 32k as voting parameters were met as per the ARC34 standards. It was not an expected proposal. But ludo played by rules.
Let community decide weather to vote on his future proposals by evaluating on how he is utilizing the funds received.
The Community feedback is definitely mixed, but the stress is in “honoring” the vote, therefore I think the best way to move forward, and not waste more time, is to pay the 32k, granted that Liquidity requests won’t be allowed from this Voting Session on.
@scholtz is making the proposals look like a joke with saying this is the deliverable. The DAO gets to vote with what to do with the money. Which is what the xGov is for lol.
So use xGov to vote on where to allocate the funds, then Ludo receives money just to keep it still and gain free algos from his arb bots for a period of time to then vote again on what to do with the money by another DAO.
Maybe the Vote Dao will then give it to another DAO so they can hold it and then vote for a third time on the funds and we will just keep passing it around.
It’s unfair to Ludo to go back on a passed proposal - even if the proposal was flawed.
I don’t believe Xgov is proving to be effective as a ‘deliverable’ could be absolutely valueless (such as pooling 32k Algo with VOTE to give VOTE holders exit liq). Xgovs have no way to know if the project or proposal their voting on has any viability at all.
We need to switch to retroactive grants as it’s much easier to judge when something was valuable than if something will be valuable.
Unless there is a legal reason why this grant cannot go forward, then it needs to be honored. Period.
We cannot after the fact cry when a grant is passed if the rules allowed it at the time. AF saw this proposal while it was being formed. We could have sought and obtained feedback to change ARC34 before this went to a vote. That didn’t happen.
xGovs could have voted it down. That didn’t happen because we have a bunch of low effort fools in this process that don’t read proposals and instead just split their votes equally among everything. Maybe we wouldn’t have so many fools in xGov if AF had adopted my suggestion that running a healthy node should be a requirement to be in xGov. But again, that didn’t happen (all for the sake of “inclusivity”).
I do not like it. It makes me angry that it passed. But the only thing that would make me more angry is if we set rules then choose on an ad-hoc basis on whether we will follow them.
Things are not black and white and I don’t think these absolutist stances are defensible. AF has a fiduciary responsibility and could potentially incur legal risk that needs to be balanced versus the potential reputation risk they face by cancelling a proposal.
This is a pilot and part of a process of building up to letting a smart contract make the decision, at which point I would agree that the votes are the votes. But xGov is currently in driver training and the instructor should pump the brakes if the car is about to hit something.
There is a reason why I prefaced it by saying “[u]nless there is a legal reason why this grant cannot go forward….”
If they cannot legally administer the grant, that should be the end of it. They can just say that and move on.
But, that doesn’t sound like what’s happening. It sounds like we are trying to come up with ad hoc rationales for why we shouldn’t do this because we just don’t like the original outcome.
Again. I don’t like this. I do not want the grant to go out. But as a matter of principle I think it must go out unless it is legally prohibited.