Pretty much. I like to think of it is a code of conduct - digital bushido, if you will. We can all disagree on how to run the chain and which proposals are good/bad, but there need to be rules in place that everyone abides by for the benefit of the entire community/blockchain.
I think it would also make people vote more carefully if they knew there was a 3-month lockout.
As for nefarious proposals going through, exceptions can always be made in times of crises.
What happens if a bad actor manages to get through a damaging proposal that we then cannot remove for 3 months? Especially considering the centralised nature of LUNC validators (Think the vague 150k TR proposal fallout). It would dramatically increase the potential damage.
This is restricting democracy and the freedom to raise proposals as individuals wish. The best proposals will stay, the questionable ones should be allowed to be reversed.
alteriar motive: You don’t want a moratorium rather you want to keep the burn tax level down. Obvious. if tax was 1.2% now, you would not support the moratorium. Beware of what you wish for, tomorrow your moratorium may be your worst nightmare
not thought through because you want to mess with parameter proposals which implement automatically. These are the only proposals the community can still implement without begging some DEV to have mercy and implement it for them. Removing the last bit of choice the community has and hand it to whom? who knows right?
If you had things your way TR would have run off with millions not just a hundred thousand. Your ideas are crap and harmful to the community. Go away for a 3 month sabattical to think about your verbal diharreah.
If you’d spent any time in TR’s Discord you’d have known I’m in favor of a 1% burn tax. I duked it out with the 0.2% zealots to the point most of them either left TR’s server or avoided me altogether. And “worst nightmare”? Really? Really?! What are you, 15? Leave your mom’s house and go touch grass.
Do you even read the nonsense you post here? Param proposals are a double-edged sword: they can be used to nuke the chain if the wrong proposal gets passed. The point of this prop here is to end the stupid repeal wars, nothing else. You’re seeing conspiracies where there are none. Again, go touch grass.
If I had my way TR would’ve published detailed spending plans and could’ve avoided all the recent drama. You sound unhinged. If you have a group of devs doing work on LUNC then by all means, write props and submit them. But like so many idiots infesting this community, all you can do is make noise and shit out useless critique. You’re salty about TR? Fine - gather your own group of devs and get to work on LUNC instead of shitting up the Agora with your idiocy.
Sounds like someone’s salty over their self-perceived irrelevance.
To put it simply… The only case when moratorium / lockout is needed is the situation when any kind of decision accepted was made because of the critical mistake. Mistake can be made by an individual but not by the whole community really. So I would call it “manipulation” or “complete mispresentation” in case of public voting.
To avoid this you want to avoid the cases when any proposal can be accepted by public because of the mass lack of knowledge or information. So you want to avoid the possibility not the outcome.
There are much better ways to achieve this than moratorium or repeals which only create chaos and make an overall bad image of the community.
No, I want to avoid the constant repeal wars that let individuals or small groups yank the chain by abusing governance. If a proposal passed then it means the majority was in favor of it, and it shouldn’t be repealed for at least a certain amount of time. Whether you think 3 months is too long or too short is another argument entirely, but once a prop passes it should be protected for a time.
Such as? State those better ways.
Fair enough. At least you took the time to present a structured argument (unlike a couple of the other knuckleheads here). I disagree with your assessment, but you’re entitled to your opinion.
I have seen a very few proposals which are based on a factical material or were proved by something more than just personal beliefs…
This is the core issue. The same goes to the current topic as well … It can be endless… As there is no answer why 3month lockout is better than 2 month / 1 week etc… Why 1.2% burn is more beneficial than 1% / 0.4% or any at all
I believe the structure of voting is not effective. But I’m not going further with ideas till voting done on 11126. I just don’t see any point in doing so unless community gets some kind of leadership. Nothing else is actually gonna change anything currently. IMHO we gonna dip.
If a few vested interests decide on an agenda, the majority get the right to vote it down. In a democracy, that’s the vote.
If there was no cheating in the vote, the result should be accepted even if it was the wrong decision.
If you lock it for rejection even though the result of the vote is out, why we vote? Validation of the proposal should have been completed before the vote.
If the result of the vote resulted in bad results, it is a matter for the validator who voted without proper review to be re-evaluated. Pending the progress of the vote result for reject is an act of ignoring the DAO.
If you want to gain the power to reject unwanted proposals, increase your influence by working steadily. That’s the normal way to get the voting power in a democracy, and public trust is not gained in an instant.
Because if we don’t introduce a lockout timer then these repeal wars will continue.
I don’t want my or anyone else’s influence being the defining variable that decides whether a proposal passes or not. What we need is a community-wide agreement that people won’t try to repeal each others’ proposals if they pass governance… at least not for a time. I think 3 months is just right, but some people may disagree. That’s fine, as long as we can all come to terms that these repeal wars need to come to an end.
IMO if the proposal is beneficial enough for the chain, there would not be repeal wars because the majority will be voting YES. The problem with the vote wars right now is that most of the proposals have not had enough time for discussions and a lot of people vote yes because it sounds like a good idea at the moment or a influencer gets involved and then get a second point of view which brings out the cons and they change their mind.
If we are talking about the 50% mint proposal, first its was a slap in the face of the majority of burn contributors as well as the chain had the crash going on so a lot of the people were unable to vote in the final hours of the passing which could’ve changed the outcome.
3 months locking period would be too long if for some reason a proposal is passed and it turns out its outcome is negative to the chain. I would suggest a ban on proposals without agora text and also if possible an opinion of members of the main development teams before the proposal is submitted for voting, this way we will have multiple points of view of people actually involved in the chain.
I would also propose a new type of proposal which can be passed without needing the 7day voting period but can only be proposed by the development teams ( Would need a mutual agreement from multiple members of the community trusted dev teams + lets say the top 5 or top 10 validators) in case the dev team needs to pass something in order to continue forward with their work. ( For example the IBC reopening proposals got the majority way quicker but still needed 7days to pass).