Hi fellow Meritians,
This thread is created in the archives as it is an elaborated example to the voting process for topics where several issues need to be addressed by voting. If you have not read the preceding thread of encouraging everyone to participate in governance, click here or the example where an implication of the two-stage voting process is explained, click here. This link is also the example on which the current thread below is built.
We mentioned disregarding the decision out of which pocket the extra 10% came. Continuing with MIP7 as the example, the way proceeds are allocated is already decided on in the past proposal. I have no quarrel with the Sad Cat Cartel besides being a dog-person. However, if the majority wishes to revise the allocations in MIP7, one or more allocations would need to be reduced to make room for the extra 10% for staking rewards/burns. The revision cannot be made without discussing this additional topic. We cannot put this into the same vote. If we did, we would end up with dozens of options in one vote. Thus, to tackle more complex topics and revisions of existing procedures, we need to dissect the topics to vote on separately.
We can choose to do this in any order we like. However, I think we always need to start with the most important one; whether the discussed topic needs to be addressed, meaning A; Yes to change, or B; No to change.
After this it leaves us with two options again. Either (1) we decide on the desired result first and then we trace the process backwards to decide on how we will accomplish the result or (2) we simply follow the steps of the process, decide step-by-step and we deal with the consequences of the steps taken. I feel we need to establish the procedure of the voting process before such issues actually arise, since the order of the votes are relevant to the results, which can then be manipulated by the author.
I have personally always preferred the first option since that is the goal we want to work towards. If we envision a goal for ourselves, then we can take the necessary steps to achieve the goal. It gives us direction.
The first option lets us backtrack from the goal we want to achieve. The initial vote has passed and a revision to MIP7 is set in motion. The subsequent vote will be about the desired outcome of the revision. We had three proposed options; (1) 10% from proceeds for buybacks for staking rewards, (2) 10% for burning, or (3) no change at all. Both of the options may prefer to revise a different allocation.
If the majority votes to put an additional 10% to staking rewards, it makes sense that the same majority will not reduce the 60% used for market support which might eventually be staking rewards, but will instead focus on the 15% being burnt, or the 20% flowing back to treasury in USDC.
Likewise, if the majority votes for an additional 10% to be burned, the same majority would not vote to reduce the 15% being burned, but would vote on the 60% used for market support or the 20% flowing back to treasury.
Deciding on the desired outcome of the proposal and backtracking afterwards gives us much more direction to take the steps needed to achieve the result.
The other option is to follow the steps of the process from the beginning. The vote has passed to revise MIP7. The first step in this process is to make room for the additional 10%. The allocations of MIP7 will become options to vote on:
A: 20% flowing back to treasury in usdc
B: 5% in ETH/WBTC for treasury
C: 60% for strong market support
D: 15% for buybacks and burns
For simplicity, the reduction of 10% makes the least dent in the 60% for strong market support, so that is the option that is voted for. So from now there is 50% used for strong support, 10% to be determined in the next vote.
The last vote will determine what purpose the 10% will have; staking rewards or burning.
As it turns out, the 10% will be used as staking rewards in MC. The effect the vote has had is minimal since the 60% might have eventually become staking rewards already. The vote on which allocation to change was first and people might have been fearful of voting to reduce the 20% for treasury or 15% for burning as that would mean reducing that allocation by more than half. Had we instead backtracked from the desired outcome (staking rewards), the DAO might have chosen to take 5% from burning and 5% from usdc to increase staking rewards. This is due to the fact that the outcome was certain so they knew what the effects were. Instead, no one wanted to reduce any allocation that much except for the 60% as it made the smallest difference.
This is all just to showcase that the order in which we take the votes matter and we need to decide on which order we are going forward with. If we let it to the author, the order may be manipulated to the wishes of the author and we start from scratch again.
*This thread is placed in archives as it is just used as an example. Only if we move forward with an adapted process of proposals and voting will this become relevant. If it does, this thread will need a slight rework to stand on its own.