Improve Terra Governance Proposal Process

Governance & Proposals
1

Overview:

The current governance proposal process on Terra has some flaws that allow spamming and
repetitive proposals to be submitted by users. To address these issues, this proposal suggests
implementing several changes to the proposal process.

Proposed Changes:

Implement an advanced spam filter that tracks the lineage of the address proposing votes, i.e.
how “old” it is calculated in “blocks-produced-since-creation”, to further rank the Free For All
votes into “old” and “new” addresses to provide a further filter for people wanting to waste
their tokens on spamming governance.

Proposal Process Amendments

Summary:

This proposal suggests a set of amendments to the proposal process to improve its efficiency and reduce spam.

The proposed changes include:

  1. A rule that prevents proposals for the same theme from being made after they have been rejected or have not reached a quorum.

  2. Implementation of a more advanced spam filter that bans wallets that submit X votes that are all rejected over a period of Y time.

  3. Introducing two tiers of votes - one approved by the “senate” and another that is free for all.

  4. Amending the free for all votes by ranking them based on the lineage of the address proposing votes, i.e., how “old” it is calculated in “blocks-produced-since-creation.”

  5. A proposal fee that increases exponentially for wallets that present a proposal that is rejected or does not reach a quorum.

Details:

  1. This rule will ensure that only high-quality proposals are submitted, and the proposal process is not cluttered with repetitive or unnecessary proposals.

  2. The advanced spam filter will prevent spam and ensure that only genuine proposals are submitted. Wallets that consistently submit rejected proposals will be banned from posting proposals for a set period (e.g. 6 months to a 1 year).

  3. Two tiers of votes will help improve the quality of proposals.

  • A “senate” tier will be composed of members who have proven themselves to be trustworthy and knowledgeable.
  • The other tier will be free for all.

  1. The amendment to the free for all votes will rank them based on the lineage of the address proposing votes. This will further filter people wanting to waste their tokens on spamming governance.

  2. The proposal fee will increase exponentially for wallets that present a proposal that is rejected or does not reach a quorum. This will ensure that only high-quality proposals are submitted and discourage wallets from submitting low-quality or scam proposals.

  3. The incremental proposal fee should be implemented by the development team, with the fee amount and increment rate decided by the development team based on the severity of spamming and the impact on the governance proposal process.
    The incremental fee should be returned if the proposal is successful.

Implementation:

The amendments will be implemented on the Terra network by the governance team. The proposed changes will be introduced through hard fork, and wallets will need to update their clients to participate in the proposal process.

Conclusion:

The proposed amendments aim to improve the efficiency and quality of the proposal process on the Terra network. It will discourage spammers and ensure that only high-quality proposals are submitted.

By introducing two tiers of votes and ranking free for all votes based on the lineage of the address proposing votes, the quality of proposals will be improved.
The proposed changes will require a hard fork, and wallets will need to update their clients to participate in the proposal process.

The human element is crucial in governance, especially in matters related to censorship. While code-as-law can be a powerful tool, it’s important to recognize that technology has its limitations and cannot replace human judgment entirely. As you said, computers lack the ability to understand concepts like compassion and empathy, which are crucial in making fair and just decisions.

In the case of governance, having a senate or similar body empowered to screen proposals and
make decisions on censorship can be a valuable addition. This allows for human input and
decision-making while still leveraging the benefits of blockchain technology. It also helps to
ensure that the governance process remains fair and transparent, and that proposals are
evaluated based on their merit rather than just being rejected or censored arbitrarily.

Consequence of a YES vote:

These proposed changes aim to improve the governance proposal process on Terra and ensure that the proposals that are submitted are relevant, useful, and have a high chance of success.
By implementing these changes, we can create a more effective and efficient governance process that benefits the entire Terra community.

Consequence of a NO vote:

We will keep the Governance proposals process unchanged and subject to the systematic submission of proposals on the same topic, proposals without relevance to the project as well as proposals without foundation that often only have the objective of disturbing the normal development of the blockchain and governance.

Best Regards Dominium

2 Likes
2

Please no more senates and committees, it’s bad enough we have to deal with TGF’s nonsense already.

6 Likes
3

The question is not that whether this can be implemented. The question rather is, after multiple requests by the community to do something about the sc(am props on governance, why wasn’t anything done about it in ONE ENTIRE YEAR?

Are the developers the ones who are uploading these sc(am props to siphon more money from unsuspecting community members? Why is removing sc(am proposals NOT a priority in a COMMUNITY blockchain?

I have absolutely no idea how to answer this question myself apart from directing my attention towards the development teams . Now I am extra cautious about the development teams on Terra Luna Classic.

This SHOULD have already been part of the L1 Team’s Q2 work but it isn’t. If by chance the L1 Team, TFL or TR refuses to do this change on their wallets, we can create a “community owned” governance portal that is independent of TFL and TR resources. We will then b(a)n them from hosting the governance portal on their own wallets. This is our choice. Where WE want the governance portal to be and HOW the governance portal should function. If the teams are not able to implement it, then fine, they do not have to host it also.

The governance portal is currently controlled by a “gov” core module that will have certain parameters (that I haven’t checked yet but I will). I do not know how it is currently configured but making changes in the way it operates should be fairly easy (but not simple - more about that at the end). Though the work is L1, it can also be done without the help of the L1 teams. I mean, L2 devs can also create this platform where the governance is properly being represented according to the formula you have suggested above. This platform can also integrate the official discussion forum.

THIS should have NEVER been the discussion forum in the first place. It should NOT have been hosted by a third party forum provider. It should have been made by US. It should have been connected to our wallets where we would have been able to get the entire community together, not parts of it in distributed Discord groups. That would have enabled us to market the proposals, implement anti-sp(am features and get signed and approved reviews.

L1 development has been soooooo sketchy for the last one year, that I do not think there was any time to do these things but it is high time that we implement this. This will ensure that Terra Luna Classic lasts for the next 50 years, not just for the next 1 year.

We can also see the result of dissociated and/or influenced voting on how we have been de(li)sted by an exchange in Canada. They can see what we are doing here. Not just them, Binance can also see us. Clearly. I had always said that. But people don’t realise that we ARE the largest implementation of a blockchain on Cosmos and we have a responsibility of representing the entire ecosystem. After callous and repeated mistakes such as minting extra coins and taking no responsibility, or very recently, getting h(ac)ked and shr(ugging responsibility for actions, there is no place for excuses anymore.

I will at least do my part for the community. Now you can talk to the L1 team whether they wanna implement this. From a technical point of view, this can’t be implemented that easily by passing a text proposal or parameter change proposal. We need to edit the code on the main core “gov” module. So you need to talk to the L1 teams before you can put this up for vote.

2 Likes
4

Rabbi, I appreciate your comment, but it doesn’t really add any value to the topic under discussion. The proposal has been published for discussion and we may see other suggestions that could be framed in the key idea of this proposal, so if you want to add some valuable input I appreciate.
Thank you.

5

I would also remind you that the Senate will only intervene when there are duplicate proposals on the same topic, and/or on fraudulent or spam proposals, so the rest of the normal operation of new proposals will be running without any interference from the Senate. I remind you that this parameter change is merely reducing or eliminating spamming and repetitive proposals.

6

Here is my input

  1. Senate is the thing to consider. We can end up having bad people as senate too. What if we have *** (censored name) or his minions as senate? Also I prefer the term “moderator” rather than senate.

  2. Scammers will evolve. If we have a rule about wallet age, they will find a way to create mass wallets and let them age.

  3. If I were you, I will mess with Terra Station’s displaying rules instead. I will still let them submit scam proposals, but hide it as deep as you can.

Setup rules to put up genuine proposals to shown in governance tab without the need to toggle “show all”.

And maybe adding another toggle like “show potential scammy proposals”, and setup rules to put all those scammy proposals there.

Just my 2c.

1 Like
7

No such team exists.
Hard fork of what?

Wallets need to update their clients? You mean wallet applications need to update themselves.

What code changes are you proposing here?

9

Do continue to spam the same pictures everywhere.
Edit: Make a new topic about your insinuations against cats of the galaxy.

These random pictures of you crying about your wluna don’t exactly help?

1 Like
11

Your a year late, so kindly stop, or I’m sure you will be removed. @LetsGrowDev

13

Doesn’t change anything. Power will inevitably centralize if you allow vetting to go through a committee.

1 Like
14

Ok understand your point, thank you for your contribution.