Polkassembly Logo

Head 1
Head 3
Head 4
Create Pencil IconCreate
TRACKS
ORIGINS
Report an issueNeed help with something?
Foot 1
Foot 2
Foot 3
Foot 4
OpenGov
View All Wish For Change
Rejected

Express Lane

inWish For Change
a year ago

Creation of express lane track: In the next batch of DV treasurer track will also be delegated to DV so a loophole will be closed: https://medium.com/web3foundation/decentralized-voices-cohort-2-eab16de857e2 However DV will not receive delegation for root track so the loophole is going to move to root track The problem is that root track only has one slot and so if it becomes a popular loophole it will spam root track and prevent other more important root proposals My suggestion is to create a track that is going to be called Express Lane, the goal of this track is to allow specific important proposals to be immune from DV (or delegations in general as it is easier for implementation) so that if one wants to avoid DV they do not have to use root track This is still an improvement for DV compared to the loophole of treasury track because the decision deposit for treasury track is only 1,000 DOT and it has many slots The idea of express lane is that it can only be used for important things, it should have only 3 slots and the decision deposit should be 25,000 DOT so it does not reduce the power of DV much but still allows for really important proposals to allow only the real DOT holders to vote without pushing them to use root track for this purpose

Comments (4)

a year ago

The decision deposit for the Root Track is 100'000 DOT (compared to 1'000 DOT on the Treasurer track). I do not think that many accounts will do this on a regular basis. Creating an entirely new track which ignores delegations would be non-trivial. I think the Whitelisted track (which allows much faster enactment, at the price of needing be whitelisted by the Polkadot Technical Fellowship) already fills this role.

a year ago

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.

  1. Some members raised discussions that this track would be used by a certain type of proposer which is primarily interested in avoiding votes from Decentralized Voices delegation recipients

  2. In adjacent discussions it was discussed that this track is intended to exist due to the fact that DV delegtions will exist on the treasurer track soon, removing the use of the treasurer track as a way to avoid DV voters – and that without this track there is a potential that people may utilize the Root track in order to avoid DV voters – and since the Root track can only accommodate 1 referendum at a time, this could lead to the Root track being clogged up by treasury requests, and potentially quite important referendums that require root privileges may end up being delayed.

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.

Load more comments
PleaseLogin to comment

Proposal Failed

3

of 3

Summary

0%

Aye

AyeNay

0%

Nay

Aye (19)0.0 DOT

Support0.0 DOT

Nay (77)0.0 DOT

Voting Data

Approval%

Support%

Threshold0.00%

Threshold0.00%

Comments (4)

a year ago

The decision deposit for the Root Track is 100'000 DOT (compared to 1'000 DOT on the Treasurer track). I do not think that many accounts will do this on a regular basis. Creating an entirely new track which ignores delegations would be non-trivial. I think the Whitelisted track (which allows much faster enactment, at the price of needing be whitelisted by the Polkadot Technical Fellowship) already fills this role.

a year ago

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.

  1. Some members raised discussions that this track would be used by a certain type of proposer which is primarily interested in avoiding votes from Decentralized Voices delegation recipients

  2. In adjacent discussions it was discussed that this track is intended to exist due to the fact that DV delegtions will exist on the treasurer track soon, removing the use of the treasurer track as a way to avoid DV voters – and that without this track there is a potential that people may utilize the Root track in order to avoid DV voters – and since the Root track can only accommodate 1 referendum at a time, this could lead to the Root track being clogged up by treasury requests, and potentially quite important referendums that require root privileges may end up being delayed.

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.

Load more comments
PleaseLogin to comment

Help Center

Report an Issue
Feedback
Terms and Conditions
Github

Our Services

Docs
Terms of Website
Privacy Policy

A House of Commons Initiative.

Polka Labs Private Limited 2025

All rights reserved.

Terms and ConditionsTerms of Website
Privacy Policy