PIP governance criteria

Governance
#1

Once a process has been decided (see 1, 2, we also need to agree on a process to identify whether the PIP should pass. Previous and current Core proposals have been assessed on a “yeah looks like that passes” basis - however as much judgement as possible needs to be removed for this to truly work without question.

This should include consideration of the following for Snapshot/On Chain assessment of PIPs:

  • Quorum - minimum proportion of PICKLE-C required to vote in the PIP

  • Agreement - minimum % of votes required for PIP to pass^
    ^ need to consider how Yes/No vs Multiple Options would work

  • Consultation - length of time that PIPs need to run for

On the first two aspects I took a look at a selection of other projects:

  • Yearn - 20% Quorum (was 33%), 50% pass rate
  • Curve - 15% Quorum (was 30%), 60% pass rate (was 51%)
  • Nexus Mutual - 15% Quorum, 51% pass rate
  • Sushiswap - 7% Quorum when set, currently lower (was set at 300k Sushi LP)

These have a slightly different approach (also require minimum tokens held or delegated to put forward a proposal):

  • Uniswap - 4% of UNI supply to vote YES
  • COMP - 4% of supply to vote YES

My proposal would be to follow the Yearn/Curve/NM model with the following criteria:

  • Quorum: 20% of PICKLE-C to vote (1 in 5 feels like a reasonable minimum, previous Core proposals have had much higher than this from what I see)
  • Agreement: 55% pass rate (removes the impact of 1 large holder swinging a vote from 49% to 51% for example - +5% gives a better level of consensus)
  • Consultation: 2 days (need enough time for consideration but don’t want it to be too long given the need to move quickly - plus timelocks to implement)

Discuss :cucumber:

4 Likes
#2

Would be good to understand how many proposals of those other projects failed to reach a quorum, and whether PICKLE has reached a maturity stage where there enough holders/contributors who want to see strong governance.

Agree with consultation phase of 2 days. Agreement threshold could be 60% to further reduce large holders influence (super majority).

#3

Thanks for providing those other points of reference. They are very helpful.

I’m not sure I agree with setting a hard minimum of 2 days for consultation on a PIP. These ideas will often already have been thoroughly debated by the community before evolving into a PIP, and I fear a hard requirement for waiting 2 days could keep us from moving sufficiently quickly. Perhaps as a general rule, proposals should be considered for 2 days, but in certain circumstances, 1 day would be allowable?

I like the agreement threshold of 55%. I don’t think any higher is necessary because the quadratic voting really mitigates whales from swinging the vote too heavily.

2 Likes
#4

Yep this could be somewhat flexible. I just want to make sure there isn’t the abilty to push something through in say 8hrs when some holders are sleeping. Maybe 2 days as standard, minimum 24hrs with reasonable reason given?

1 Like
#5

@chimaera thanks for this. I think we should get this ratified with a PIP, are you able to add a vote to the original post with suggestions from Larry if you agree? Just replying here to bring this back to the top. I am not technical enough to provide feedback on your proposal. From a logical perspective, the numbers look good to me. Although like in the case of PIP-17 there was some hesitation/pause from the devs and the community even though the vote was 56.9% ‘YES’. If the proposal is ratified with let our clauses for critical PIPs like larry mentioned, it will much easier to say unequivocally if we had a PASS or REJECT after a PIP vote is concluded. Anyone else from the community have other ideas?? @yyctrader @leekuanjew @Peachy - sorry for the PING, just realise this may not have got due attention.

2 Likes
#6

I think that’s a good idea. I mentioned 55% above and I think for important decisions that should stand. 51% would be okay for more trivial decisions however the categorisation could be controversial so suggest sticking to one or the other.

It’s a shame a quorum level is still not definable but we can live with that, if people don’t vote then they have to live with the outcome, just like in politics.

2 Likes