Creating a formal BAO Improvement Proposal (BIP) process

BAO currently does not have a formal process for submitting a governance proposal - something we would like to change so we hopefully see more proposals from the community. There are 2 things I would like to discuss and reach consensus on, and if successful, create a BIP to go to vote.

1. Do you agree with the draft process for creating a proposal I have laid out below?

2. What requirements should there be for moving a proposal to snapshot for voting and making a vote binding?

We want to enable the community to post proposals and at the same time avoid getting spammed and have a clear guidelines for which votes will be binding and which aren’t

An example I think that could be reasonable:

  • minimum voting power of 50m BAO to create a snapshot.

  • The snapshot becomes binding when it has followed the documented process and reaches a quorum of 25 billion BAO voting power (the recent vote on what to do after rewards stopped on xDai reached around 35 billion).

  • An exception could be allowed for proposals submitted by multisig holders (or maintainer galaxy before multisig is implemented), who may want to speed up the process for an emergency vote.

  • New proposals can over ride old ones.

6 Likes

We should also include a template to use, so people can build on or understand what may be needed for consideration. This is a rough draft*

(~) is Optional information.

Proposal:

Purpose:

~Example (explanation of the function/usage/inspiration. This can be either the site/medium/github. As much information is appreciated):
~Requirements (Is there something that would be needed to set this in motion?):

Example:
Proposal: To create a Compounding Vault via Yearn strategies

Purpose: Integrate a well-known/successful strategy to generate income for the users of BAO as well as the DAO for future marketing/development in the network.

Example of Idea: yearn.finance , v1 yVaults Overview - yearn.finance

Requirement: Alot of Dev work.

1 Like

Here are a few comments or refinement we could do :

Stage 1 : If an idea as refined from a rough model to well crafter one, should the OP update the first post or make a new thread before asking Staff for validation and move forward to the Stage 2 ?

2. What requirements should there be for moving a proposal to snapshot for voting and making a vote binding?

  • I like the quorum idea. But i’m afraid the 25B mark could be too high currently. I don’t like the mega bills, but the way voting power is accounted as of now ( 33% of your locked Bao + 1/4th of your $BAO + 3x your $BAO that is in Bao/ETH Party Pool) without accounting for BAO coupons on xDai, it may be hard to get there. As we had 2 persons reprensenting 20B who voted, if we skip those 2, a quorum of 10B could be interesting.

  • I would prefer to not set a minimum voting power to create a snapshot, nor i would like to see everyone write directly on snapshot without using the workflow and the process we try to design here. I don’t like to impose a quota for pushing up to vote as it’s like we are sending a message that only whales or big members can do proposals. I think we could see a lot of great ideas if we accept them through a process from anyone, independent of their voting weight.

  • If a Concept is well crafted, with a clear and actionable mechanic or model, move to BIP for a week to account final comments, then could be move out to snapshot by the staff.

  • My idea is that the community could entrust the staff or a governance galaxy to process forward the BIP that are mature to hold a vote

@Fong, yeah like the idea of a template to help people give the level of detail we need and could tie in with @Baowolf suggestion of an “approval” section of the forum where community members believe a concept has progressed to the stage of being ready to become a BIP.

So an idea gets developed in concepts. Then the template in “BIP approvals” is filled in to help make sure it has all the details needed. Moderators can check with “galaxies” nothing else needs to be added, then once approved moderators can move to the “governance proposals” section. The community can review the final wording for 1 week before it is moved to a snapshot vote, where if it passes with quorum over xx billion, it become binding.

I guess we already have an element of centralization in this process, so there would be no advantage to having snapshot open to let anyone post a proposal directly for voting where people can bypass the procedure and cause confusion by creating votes that would be ignored.

Do people agree with this approach - where moderators ensure proposals are fully formed before posting them as a governance proposal and eventually a snapshot vote, where we trust them not to block or slow down proposals they may not personally agree with in favor of cleaner/ less confusing snapshots where there are no votes getting ignored for not following the correct process?

  • Yes, sounds good
  • Back to the drawing board. Whole process needs rethinking (please comment on why)

0 voters

I’d like to add the requirement that all Bao holders be eligible to vote. This would require fixing our voting system so the community members who hold Bao outside of ETH get to vote.
Please also account for tBao holders.

1 Like

Yes, not having cross chain voting is one of our biggest issues at the moment.It is definitely something we want to do, but does not effect the process we are trying to establish here - Creating a proposal and getting it to a vote.

Cross chain voting was not possible on snapshot & this is one of the reasons we have listed coupons as one the biggest things we have learned from. We also mention that cross chain infrastructure is very young. https://gov.bao.finance/t/learnings-from-bao/681

As soon as we can, we will implement voting rights for BAOcx and tBAO holders.

This was one of the downsides of treading new paths with an alpha product - we come across problems we did not think of or expect.

1 Like

Ok, looks like people agree with the approach so far.

Next thing to work out is what level of quorum should be needed.

For a vote to be considered binding it should be something that the community feels strongly about, so the number should not be too low. Galaxies could always choose to take direction anyway from a vote that did not meet quorum.

Previous votes have ranged along the lines of 5b BAO to 40b voting. So I’m thinking something like 10b.

would be good to see peoples thoughts on this

The issue with having a relatively low quorum is that a whale, or small group of coordinated whales could push through votes that aren’t in the best interests of the wider community.

To get help avoid this we can build in some kind of veto mechanism, that allows multisig holders to veto a vote. Over riding a veto could still be possible by holding another vote with a higher % of quorum needed and a higher % majority in favor.

25% of voting power quorum and 2/3 majority for example.

While this does add an element of centralization, its important to remember that multisig holders will be voted in and its their job to act in the interests of the project, so this would only be used very sparingly and intended as a safety mechanism.

1 Like

I think that works perfectly as a fail-safe. I’m pretty sure BaoMan proposed a similar veto mechanism initially. I don’t really think it centralized things, just adds an additional layer of checks and balances, and if the community truly wants to push the vote through despite the veto they still have the ability to. It just encourages more engagement with contested proposals.

[edit: formatting]
As there seem to be no objections to this setup, I think we are ready to move to the governance proposals section of the forum with the following process for a BIP:


BIP process

  • There is no minimum number of BAO required to follow the steps to add a proposal

  • You should develop a concept/ proposal in the #concepts section of the forum.

  • After 1 week you can request a moderator to add it to the #governance-proposals section.

  • Moderators will check that the proposal has all the detail needed to be implemented without ambiguity. Moderators will not filter proposals based on their views on the proposal itself, just on whether it is fully formed or not.

  • The proposal should spend at least 1 week in #governance-proposals, where the community can review its final wording. After 1 week unchanged, it can be moved to snapshot for a vote.

  • Multisig holders (or core team before multisig is implemented) can bypass this process and put up a vote straight to snapshot where it is deemed time sensitive


Voting

  • Quorum requirement is 10b votes.

  • Multisig holders (or core team, before multisig is implemented) can veto a vote. When this happens it will automatically go to a revote where 25% of voting power and a majority of 2/3 is required to overturn the veto


I’d like one final pulse check before I post a formal proposal in #governance-proposals

  • Agree with this process
  • Disagree with this process (please comment)

0 voters

1 Like