Changing the curves of the referendums that were affected by extended confirmation periods
Changing the curves of the referendums that were affected by extended confirmation periods: Since the confirmation period was extended to 7 days it can be used as an opportunity for people to snipe vote no against a referendum during confirmation and basically abort it without giving it time for other people to vote in favor. This problem was less apparent when the confirmation period was 24 hours because the window of opportunity for sniping a no was much shorter. The reason confirmation period should exist is simply to avoid people waiting the last day of the referendum to vote yes to basically snipe a yes since 24 hours is a short time and some people may not notice and not vote against in time. The problem is that 7 days confirmation while being a useful protection against yes sniping becomes an opportunity for no sniping. It also slows down the process of the referendum even more than it was before. I think the right procedure should be to adjust the curves to account for the new extended confirmation. So instead of being able to pass with just 50%+ and any amount of support on day 28th this should happen on day 21 so that it can enter into confirmation on day 21 in the worst case scenario and then the 7 days of confirmation cannot be used for sniping because even if it is aborted the timer is still running until day 28 allowing people to then vote yes instead of aborting permanently The same should be done for medium spender where the confirmation now stands at 4 days so on day 24 of the curve the level of support required should be zero and the threshold should be just about 50%+ so that the last 4 days of confirmation overlap with the last 4 days of the 28 days period
Comments (1)
Proposal Failed
3
of 3Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (16)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (60)0.0 DOT
Voting Data
Approval%
Support%
Threshold0.00%
Threshold0.00%
Comments (1)
ChaosDAO would like to provide the following feedback from our community. We offer this feedback voluntarily in the spirit of OpenGov, in order to help teams improve their proposals so we can all build the network together.
-
Some members expressed that the increased confirmation periods of the Big Spender and Treasurer tracks (7 days), along with a 28 days decision period, is too excessive.
-
Some members have previously discussed that the confirmation period is the last line of defense for people to review a proposal if they haven't voted already, and that 7 days for these tracks (since they can spend a lot of DOT) seems fine, but the overall timeline could be shortened.
-
Some members informed others that the confirmation period increase RFC submitted by a ChaosDAO member and voted on by the Polkadot token holder DAO under a previous runtime update.
ChaosDAO votes as a collective based on the results of our anonymous internal voting procedures. Our members are not required to provide any feedback about why they have voted in a particular direction. Similarly, to respect our members' right to anonymity, we will not be sharing names of individuals who have chosen to voluntarily provide feedback. We would like to disclose that some of our members are affiliated with this referendum, be that on the submission, operational side or on the curator team. However, the number of affiliated members is vastly outnumbered by the number of non-affiliated members who voted AYE on this proposal. Additionally, our internal processes dictate that those with a COI for a particular referendum must recuse. Therefore we are confident that ChaosDAO's vote unequivocally does not represent a COI.
ChaosDAO would like to provide the following feedback from our community. We offer this feedback voluntarily in the spirit of OpenGov, in order to help teams improve their proposals so we can all build the network together.
Some members expressed that the increased confirmation periods of the Big Spender and Treasurer tracks (7 days), along with a 28 days decision period, is too excessive.
Some members have previously discussed that the confirmation period is the last line of defense for people to review a proposal if they haven't voted already, and that 7 days for these tracks (since they can spend a lot of DOT) seems fine, but the overall timeline could be shortened.
Some members informed others that the confirmation period increase RFC submitted by a ChaosDAO member and voted on by the Polkadot token holder DAO under a previous runtime update.
ChaosDAO votes as a collective based on the results of our anonymous internal voting procedures. Our members are not required to provide any feedback about why they have voted in a particular direction. Similarly, to respect our members' right to anonymity, we will not be sharing names of individuals who have chosen to voluntarily provide feedback. We would like to disclose that some of our members are affiliated with this referendum, be that on the submission, operational side or on the curator team. However, the number of affiliated members is vastly outnumbered by the number of non-affiliated members who voted AYE on this proposal. Additionally, our internal processes dictate that those with a COI for a particular referendum must recuse. Therefore we are confident that ChaosDAO's vote unequivocally does not represent a COI.