Hello all, I’m chiming in here to ratify and reiterate some concerns that we have seen in these discussions.
To begin we would like to remind everyone what the voting options are:
-
YES - This person is your preferred candidate for AADAO’s Oversight Committee.
-
ABSTAIN - This person is not your preferred candidate (please remember to vote Yes on your preferred candidate’s proposal), or you wish to contribute to the quorum but you formally decline to vote either for or against the proposal.
-
NO - No votes on this proposal will not have any impact on the election.
-
NO WITH VETO - A ‘NoWithVeto’ vote indicates a proposal either (1) is deemed to be spam, i.e., irrelevant to Cosmos Hub, (2) disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or (3) violates or encourages violation of the rules of engagement as currently set out by Cosmos Hub governance. If the number of ‘NoWithVeto’ votes is greater than a third of the total votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.
We asked for those wishing to participate in the elections to:
“Please vote YES only on one proposal—for the candidate you support.”
We have noticed some concerns about the lack of ‘following’ the voting rules we set forth, while this is not ideal (or sub-optimal), this was expected due to Hub’s gov not being the ideal tool for an election. We have outlined our criteria for how the winner will be selected - the highest number of YES votes by ATOM - and so, “No” votes have no impact on winner selection. With this, the election is going forward as we intended and no deviation from our initially outlined voting style will affect the final results.
You can view a live dashboard of the YES votes on all three proposals here: https://elections.atomaccelerator.com/
On the note of validators playing a large part in the elections, this is normal from our perspective and in line with the Hub’s governance traditions Validators play a large role in governance. Delegators (community members) chose a validator that aligns with their interests and goals. A validator has to vote on governance to represent their community. Every delegator is allowed to override the vote of a validator if they disagree with the choices of that validator. It would not be the most democratic and decentralized election if we omit a large chunk of the community who rely on their validators to act on their behalf. This is the same stance we had before the election going onchain and will continue for the rest of this voting period.
On the note of potential conflicts of interest from validators, we advise validator teams to use their own discretion, as is normal in governance. Unlike prop #95 and #865, the current proposals are not related to funding the AADAO, and as such, we did not exclude the validators “linked” to us from voting. Specifically, the only validator whose team overlaps with ours right now is Citadel One - via Reena being a member of AADAO and Citadel. However, Reena recused herself from the discussion at Citadel about this vote - the vote was decided upon by the other members of Citadel’s leadership.This is the same stance we had before the election going onchain and will continue for the rest of this voting period.
On the note of setting a common end time for the election (because each of the onchain props end a few minutes apart), we have already stated this in the proposal: “Results will be deemed final for this election cycle, at the end of the voting period of all three proposals.”
We would like to remind every candidate to maintain decorum regarding their conduct. We understand the need for candidates to distinguish themselves from the others, to campaign and lobby to secure votes, but decorum must be maintained. Governance discussions for the Hub should always be respectful and in good faith. Attempting to vilify AADAO, its members or this election process - in order to score points for one’s own campaign - is not behavior we would like to see in an Oversight Committee member, or in general, on any governance discussions.
The rules for this election have been discussed before going onchain and stated clearly in the proposal. We will not be amending the rules of the election while it is in the voting period.
This being said, we are actively trying to reach out to validators who voted Yes in multiple proposals or voted No on a proposal, to “correct” their vote - i.e. vote Yes on one proposal, Abstain on the other two. This outreach however has no bearing on how the winner of the election will be decided (stated above).
In closing, I want to say that this election is being conducted in the best available method to the Hub right now. Future elections could use the updated x/gov module (that allows for multiple choice questions) or using DAO DAO - when these options are available on the Hub, available to all ATOM stakers.