…and a bit of both in-between. Obviously this user doesn’t care about voting, and is obviously trading, which I already mentioned in a couple of previous threads that it might be an issue.
Now, I’d love to know if all these trades count as one vote (for the same wallet) or many votes (for each transaction). I’m asking because the concern is clear - there are users like this one that don’t really care if they’re voting for or against a proposal, they just wanna make a buck.
Unfortunately it seems this proposal might fail, a very important proposal for the future of $CLOUD I might say, and I’d love to know if this trading behavior has something to do with it.
I think this is how it works….please correct me if I’m wrong
voting weight is based on $ amount voted (if you think this proposal will do good for CLOUD, how much CLOUD would you be willing to buy for this proposal to be realized and vice versa)
Staking score will be for ASR and potentially be for enabling community members to push draft proposals into deliberation with a certain amount accumulated
It may be a part of the futarchy model, but many members don’t want it in their voting system. Desired by the deveIopers maybe, but I disagree on it being fundamental or necessary. I don’t think a “beneficial outcome” involves those trying to make a buck, or speculating. While it’s not a flaw, for some it is unwelcomed to say the least. My opinions of course
There is no problem with front running and making money. But in governance, this is a problem for some. Many feel governance and trading should not be mixed. Just a fact my friend.
More of an opinion than a fact. Because when people vote on subjects they are trading on the outcome in the bsckground. At least this is being honest about.
You’re misunderstanding bud. The fact is that many people don’t like mixing governance and trading. Very simple and true statement. The pros and cons of the model is always debatable.
You’re absolutely right, and I personally don’t have an issue with that. What I see more often than not, is that people don’t care about the outcome of the vote if they can make a profit. In other words, let’s assume proposal A is good for the project, and in normal circumstances (almost) everybody would like to vote for it to pass. My problem lies in the fact that there might be people with this model that would be happy to vote against the proposal if that means they’re making a profit.
Of course you have a personal interest when voting on a proposal, as it should be, fren, but I don’t think that a system where people will vote against what they would vote in a “normal” scenario just to make a buck is a good voting system.
Not an expert, and it probably has flaws, too, not saying the opposite. What I like about it is that you enter the Governance page just to vote (based on your voting power, too). No other “distractions” there.
Its part and parcel of the futarchy model, if theres no trading or arbing and everyone is favor of the proposal and votes yes, the price within the vote keeps going up and up
That for me is a negative effect as It will curb voting parciptation at a some point, no matter how bullish anyone of us is on sanctum/cloud would we really going to pay a premium of 10, 20, 30, or more % in the vote market just to parcipate in staking for ASR
So in reality its a simple decision we either let the futarchy market decide (voters, traders, arbers and all that comes with it) or we don’t and abandon it,
If we try to introduce changes are we in effect saying we don’t like what the market is telling us? so does that mean we already saying futarchy has failed ?
As much as i struggle with futarchy as a concept (Its for me just another exotic form of governance) I’m Not so sure, its part of the learning curve for us all, one vote where things where different to expectation isn’t enough, Futarchy is complicated and has therefore has many nuances, trading/arbing are just part of that.
I guess myself and others aren’t so sure exotic is the way to go for governance. Even though I did propose the DAM model ( [Proposal] Dynamic Autonomous Matrix (DAM) for the Sanctum DAO ), which includes a weighted decision market, I still think traditional voting is a simple, comfortable, and safe model, and still the best way to go.
However, I support sanctum and positive innovation. So I will keep trying to love it, as I know others are trying to do.
If you vote for the proposal to pass and it does pass, you’re buying CLOUD with your USDC. The price is the one when you buy. The thing is, if the proposal passes is because supposedly the community is bullish and the price should go up after the vote. That’s why they say you’re buying at a discount, but it all, of course, depends on what the price does afterwards to see if it was worthy. If the proposal doesn’t pass you get your USDC back.
