[Implemented] Allow #hashgang to use their HFT LP tokens to vote

Governance
1

Please use this template to structure your proposals for Hashflow.

Proposal Structure

  • Title: [DRAFT] Allow #hashgang to use their HFT LP tokens to vote
  • Author(s): @mib
  • Related Discussions: none
  • Submission Date: Nov 23, 2022

Body Paragraphs

Simple Summary: Augment the governance voting process to count “deposited” HFT tokens equally to any other HFT so that we don’t disadvantage the most loyal #hashgang.

Abstract: This proposal will remove a (likely) unintended edge case in our voting structure which punishes loyal HFT holders who are LP-ing their HFT on Hashflow because it excludes them from voting unless they withdraw funds from Hashflow.

Motivation: The current voting process outlined in the governance post lets a proposal pass if the majority of HFT holders vote for it. This is great, as it allows governance proportional to how invested someone is in the protocol which rewards loyalty. However, there is one key flaw in this design. The most loyal #hashgang are staking their HFT in LP pools – which means they are both hodling AND providing liquidity for the protocol at the same time. Unfortunately, the current specification means that they can’t vote with their deposited HFT unless they withdraw them. This incentive is opposite of what we want – these ultra-loyal #hashgang should be rewarded, not punished.

Specification & Rationale: Therefore, I propose the following. We should modify the snapshot voting logic to look for “deposited HFT” and treat them like any other HFT. This way, the loyal #hashgangs can participate in voting on proposals without having to withdraw their tokens.

This could be implemented relatively simply by creating a snapshot voting strategy (see docs). This strategy would count a user’s HFT tokens AND their h-HFT tokens (the LP tokens minted when depositing). We’ll only have to make sure to weight them correctly so that they are 1:1.

Benefits (Pros):

  • Ensures we don’t exclude loyal #hashgangs from the voting process
  • Relatively easy to implement from a technical perspective

Downside (Cons): There might be concerns about transparency of the vote weighting. We should find a way to publish the code for this.

Voting: “yes” to count deposited HFT for votes on proposals, “no” to disregard them.

6 Likes
2

Great proposal. Clear and lots of useful information presented.

1 Like
3

I vote yes, it is a logical and appropriate proposal for the governance process.
The HFT holder should use his ability to vote :white_check_mark:

2 Likes
4

Totally in favor - great idea. I’d say make it the first formal proposal.

1 Like
5

Smart Proposal :brain:, I like the way you considered not excluding some users from voting.
I say (Yes) to this proposal. :+1:

1 Like
6

I believe this should not be something to worry in long/medium Time frame.
when hashverse details reveals and we implement Ve-HFT style governance,you will be able to make profit on your stake while you have your voting powers!

7

agree
personally, I will not remove my LP just to vote
if others do the same, we will lose many votes

8

but would it be possible to provide LP and keep the voting power as well ?
I don’t think that LP and hashverse are linked, in that case, this will lead to migration of LP to the hashverse staking system, which may damage our LP volumes

9

Totally agress !!
I vote YES

10

I am in full support of this.

11

Yes, I support and share that!

12

I support this proposal

13

Totally agress !!
I vote YES

14

so, if everybody agrees, let’s start by passing/implementing this one, so that we can all vote for the upcoming proposals

15

Technically, the comment period has not closed yet. However, I think this is a proposal with overwhelming support – I believe the Guardians should push it ASAP as a Formal Proposal, as there are absolutely no downsides.

2 Likes
16

Yep — that’s exactly the crux of this proposal!

17

my understanding that guardians do not push any proposal for formal stage, they just block harmful proposals, right ?

18

Yup, sorry I misspoke here. What I meant is that this proposal should be sent to Purgatory.

1 Like
19

The comment period for this thread is now closed - thanks for all the comments!

20