No With Veto (NWV) removal

Conversation
21

sounds like something that wont change anything at this stage

22

That’s just not true. There are hundreds of spam proposals that have been vetoed. There is one even right now #974 with 99.97% voting VETO.

I think NWV should be just changed to SPAM as you proposed. If that was the case, then nobody would have voted SPAM on the ATOM 2.0 proposal because that clearly wasn’t a spam proposal.

Also SPAM threshold should be 50%. Most spam proposals have 99% VETO vote. 33% threshold is just too low for SPAM control. It is either clearly SPAM or not.

And as I have mentioned time and again, the most effective way to deal with spam is increase the deposit. Paying for transactions is a fundamental way to deal with spam from the beginning of time and certainly used widely in blockchains. If a system sees too much spam, increase the cost of submission. The deposit amount for submitting proposals is far too low.

23

I think she was referring to non spam proposals being abused (vetoed while not being a spam)

The argument is that some people are abusing NWV just because they don’t agree with a proposal and want to shut it down. I’m pretty sure the entities that have vetoed Atom 2.0 would have probably also voted “spam” if it was the only choice back then. The same way they would have vote spam in the more recent proposal regarding AADAO. It seems a bit naïve in my mind to think that just because we change NWV to Spam will actually make those entities stop trying to abuse their power vote.

24

That’s why I am also suggesting to raise the SPAM threshold to 50%.

What happened with the ATOM 2.0 proposal is you ended up with 37% VETO and 47% YES votes. If this was 37% NO and 47% YES, the proposal passes. The low 33% threshold put in play the strategy of Jae’s team to try for VETO despite majority of voting token holders (55% whichi is 47 out of 47+37=84) being for the 2.0 proposal (it was a signaling proposal, not actionable in any case). Jae knew he couldn’t block through the NO vote and that is why he went with VETO strategy. If you put the SPAM threshold at 50%, you eliminate this strategy entirely. Then they have to decide whether to do SPAM or NO and the danger is that if they go SPAM and don’t reach 50%, then the proposal passes which will force them to do an honest NO campaign. Raising the limit to 50% for SPAM therefore turns it into a real differentiator as to whether the proposal is indeed spam and the proposer has to lose his deposit.

1 Like
25

We actually had a wild idea for preventing the abuse of the SPAM vote, but we didn’t implement it, as we didn’t get enough feedback of this. From the ADR it is this sentence:

To avoid voters wrongfully voting down a proposal as SPAM , voters will be slashed x % (default 0%) of their voting stake if they voted SPAM on a proposal that wasn’t a spam proposal. The parameter allows to incentivise voters to only vote SPAM on actual spam proposals and not use SPAM as a way to vote No with Veto with a different threshold.

@vixcontango

That’s why I am also suggesting to raise the SPAM threshold to 50%.

Yes, a proposal is marked as SPAM if it is greater than the sum of all other votes (so 50%).

The deposit of a proposal marked as SPAM is always burned (while it is a parameter for NWV).

26

NWV confiscates the deposit for scam proposals. That’s necessary and useful. I would vote against this proposal for that reason.

2 Likes
27

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.