The multiplier counts per 6-months periods for active delegation. A ācompletedā participation period only requires the delegate to have voted at least once during that period.
Will all previously active delegates be starting at 1.1 this period?
Separately, (and I know itās on me for not chiming in earlier) a 1.5x multiplier sounds like a lot
Think it sounds quite reasonable to reset this period every six months, not sure about the final formula, but a good direction nonetheless
I voted YES for now as we should renew and the general direction is fine.
But I also donāt really get the point of the multiplier. Mind you itās in my interest to have a multiplier as I have been here since the start but not sure that this is fair to newcomers. And we should strive to make governance attractive to newcomers!
1 Like
Open questionāIām not sure we really defined that well. Thoughts?
@lefterisjp I think the argument in favor of the multiplier is that longer-standing delegates have more context and would therefore be more valuable to the DAO. That said, I think it might go too far to say theyāre up to 150% more valuable.
@fourpoops I donāt mind either way but given the argument above it would follow to count the first trial period meaning delegates who voted at all during the initial trial period will have 1.1 for this periodās reporting.
What do you think a good multiplier / formula would be? I know the 1.5 cap came from my post as the first to throw it out there. My thoughts on the multiplier is that its a nice bonus to incentivize people to stay around and stay active, but curious to see otherās thoughts. In the context of the program, it would have hypothetically inflated that first 6-month by at most 42,500 (in a scenario where everyone was 1.5 x 85,129.21).
The adjusted leniency in definition of participation should somewhat balance centralization fears out as it would be way more forgiving for new members. Of course, lead a horse to water applies hereā¦
The one nice thing is if this passes the highest anyone would be is at 1.1 the next period. So if as the discussion matures consensus is that the cap should maybe only be 1.25 or something, we have runway to amend the formula at that time. I just wanted to ask, since with that in mind while itās late to have in terms of this HIP vote, itās not too late in the grand scheme of things.
All good points. I think I would just make it a smaller multiplier over a longer period of time, but I completely agree that we have time and can refine it as we go which is why I voted in favor.
Only 50% more, which sounds reasonable to me. 150% would definitely be too much of a premium. Whatās nice about having to renew this every 6 months is that we have a bit of time to assess how the multiplier is even working before we get to the max. (edit: seeing thatās exactly what @Bob-Rossi just said too)
my take:
- incentivizing delegate involvement is the goal.
- the participation threshold discourages involvement.
- the participation multiplier encourages continuous involvement.
- rewarding long-standing delegates for continuous involvement seems extremely reasonable.
- a multiplier is an effective tool for such a reward, and the current 1.5 multiplier (a) seems more than fair and (b) will apply to new delegates who continue to participate just as it will apply to delegates who have participated for almost a year.
1 Like
Iād rather we do not. As this is something that is voted right now and as such the rules should start ācounting from nowā.
Otherwise we effectively vote to give ourselves a head start. Which does not sound right.
this is a fair point.
Agreed, this is a fair point. Itās also the conservative approach, which we should stick with particularly if there is any shred of doubt.
i do like erring on the side of caution, especially where ethics are concerned.
@fourpoops The final resolution would be to decrease the multiplier to make it fairer to older and new delegates as well.
Does anyone have any proposed numbers in mind?
Hasnāt this already passed? I still donāt think 50% is too high, particularly considering it will take more than two years of consistent participation for any delegate to reach a 1.5x multiplier. We have plenty of time to lower it in future renewals if weāre finding it to be a disincentive to new delegatesāI donāt think thatās what will happen though.
I agree with this, too. What is needed at this point to put this in place? Itās now at least two periods of no-pay for delegates.
With it already passing the vote, I think the best course of action would be to run as voted and if there is concern on the multiplier to start a discussion in another thread to adjust the amount going forward. It sounds like from discussion above with @lefterisjp @dybsy @fourpoops for this period the multiplier is starting at 1.0 to avoid giving certain people head starts. (If Iām misunderstanding, let me know. Iāll also add I agree thatās fair to be conservative). So that gives us the benefit of having time to discuss before the next period when a multiplier over 1.0 is actually kicking in.
If that seems fair, I donāt mind making a new thread so the discussion can be more focused.
Iād also note that in fairness to those who support the current formula, the discussion of the multiplier has been open for over a month at this point with no other formulas being presented. Based on the votes and feedback, most seem to have appetite for a multiplier, just varying opinions on the amount and length. The presented multiplier has gotten its fair share of approval, so Iām not totally sure itās fair to say āthe final resolution would be to decrease the multiplierā.
I say that remaining 100% open to fleshing out this discussion as I know the formula I presented had the benefit of the inertia that comes with being the first one. I do really want to see other formulas presented, as Iām wondering if we have a situation where hairs are being split over minor variances, say whether it should be 1.5 or 1.4. Or if the escalator should be 0.05 a period instead of 0.1
1 Like
Yeah I agree with this. I just noted 150% sounded high to me, but am open to disagreement, definitely never said the vote should be paused, and agreed with Bob before that we could refine the formula as we go.