I would like to bring forth a proposal for your consideration. Recently, we voted yes in an OIP to allow Justin Sun access to 500 million uncirculated coins staked for two years. However, at this time, we do not know whether Mr. Sun’s supply is gaining APR, and more importantly, whether that APR is being staked or accessible to him at any point, as it is not officially part of the staking agreement.
My proposal is that uncirculated supplies that are staked should either:
a) Not benefit from APR, or
b) Be automatically burned to benefit the community.
Additionally, I propose that any holder of staked XCN should be prohibited from voting on matters that directly benefit or hinder themselves. We should not be condoning conflicts of interest, especially when voting weight is derived from allocated or given coins rather than actively acquired holdings.
This is the most ethical proposal I can create that does not specifically target an individual but instead sets a precedent for future holders of an uncirculated supply while ensuring fair governance.
Brother - I mean this with respect, but delete this post. Your entire argument defeats itself instantly. Holders prohibited from voting? Who should vote if not the stakeholders themselves? Aliens?
I completely agree with this proposal. Setting clear guidelines on how uncirculated staked coins can benefit from APR is crucial for maintaining fairness within our ecosystem. Not allowing these coins to earn APR or alternatively, burning the APR, ensures that the system does not inadvertently favor those with large, uncirculated staked amounts without contributing back to the community.
Moreover, addressing the issue of conflict of interest in voting is essential for ethical governance. By preventing holders of staked XCN from voting on matters that directly affect their personal stake, we uphold the integrity of our decision-making process. This proposal not only aims at fairness but also sets a positive precedent for future governance in our community.
Thank you for proposing such a thoughtful and necessary change.
I respectfully disagree. The proposal isn’t about disenfranchising stakeholders but about addressing conflicts of interest. In governance, especially in decentralized systems, it’s crucial to ensure that decisions are made in the best interest of the community as a whole, not just for individual gain.
If holders with significant stakes can vote on matters that directly affect their financial interests, there’s a clear risk of bias. This isn’t about who should vote but how we can guarantee that voting leads to decisions that benefit everyone, not just the most influential stakeholders.
The suggestion isn’t to replace stakeholders with “aliens” but to implement checks and balances, perhaps through a system where certain decisions require a broader consensus or where conflicts are declared and managed. This approach isn’t unprecedented; many governance models in various sectors employ similar strategies to prevent self-serving decisions.
The proposal seeks to promote equity and integrity in our governance process, and I believe it’s a discussion worth having.
You do realize that currently in order to vote that you currently have to stake right? What would you propise to change the current way they are doing how the governance happens? What or how would we derive voting power from? Are you suggesting that only people/ holders that do not stake there tokens get to vote in governance and that people that choose to stake only get the yield?
Maybe my words are misleading. The current example we have is that Justin Sun bought 300M tokens directly before the OIP-52, he then proceeded to vote yes for something that was specifically created to benefit him. I dont mean that we cant vote on things such as increased APR rates because they benefit the entire community.
No no, as i said to another individual above. My main concern was something such as OIP-52 happening again. Where the recipient of 500M staked just before the voting commenced 300M tokens and voted in favor of himself.
That is what i meant. I apologize if it didnt land correctly.
What do you mean? The whole point of governance is to ensure fairness, transparency, and to prevent conflicts of interest or the centralization of power to top few, regardless of whether it involves Justin or not.
Greetings,
I sincerely appreciate your proposal.
I concur with your perspective, not only in the specific matter you raised but also in general for the fairness and transparency of this project. In response to your inputs and proposal, I propose considering the following options:
Mitigating Large Purchases Before Voting**
•Time-Locked Voting Rights:
Implement a “vesting period” where newly acquired coins must be held for a specified period before they can be used for governance votes.
• Snapshot-Based Voting: Use a “predefined snapshot” taken before voting announcements to determine eligible voting balances, preventing last-minute purchases from influencing outcomes.
• Weighted Voting by Holding Duration: Introduce a system where votes are weighted based on the duration an individual has held XCN, discouraging short-term acquisitions for manipulation.
Addressing Uncirculated Supply APR Concerns
• No APR for Uncirculated Staked Coins: Modify smart contracts to prevent uncirculated supplies from generating APR, ensuring only actively acquired holdings benefit.
• Auto-Burn Mechanism: Any APR generated from uncirculated coins could be automatically burned rather than accrued to the holder, benefiting the ecosystem instead of individual actors.
Preventing Conflicts of Interest in Governance
• Recusal Mechanism: Implement a rule that prevents individuals from voting on proposals where they have a direct financial interest, similar to corporate governance policies.
• Delegated Governance Model: Require that voting power for proposals affecting large stakeholders be delegated to independent third-party governance bodies or community representatives.
Strengthening Governance Integrity
• Transparency & Audits: Ensure all governance-related staking, APR earnings, and coin allocations are fully transparent and verifiable on-chain.
• Community-Driven Policy Review: Establish a “governance ethics committee” to evaluate proposals for fairness and prevent undue influence from any single entity.
1st point itself does not make sense. how you can regulate buying any suupply of tokens by anyone ? its not company whose acquisition or merger gets rugulated by SEC
I like the final 3 points. But the first one impedes to much into the spirit of the DAO. Because many of us withdraw funds for other pruposes and would be punished for doing so.
I just simply want an ethical system that isnt benefiting one person unilaterally.
