Proposal: Poll Voting Permissions

Summary:

Enable proposal poll voting permissions to accounts that are staking YFI only.

Motivation:

While the governance voting mechanism is an excellent method of decentralized and trust less democracy, the proposal / polling system is flawed and can be compromised. Currently anyone can create multiple accounts (including bots) and manipulate the polls at inception to never reach the YIP voting stage. A bad actor can create fake accounts and downvote or upvote bomb a proposal as they wish. Those not vested in the system can also manipulate polls.

Specification:

Link gov.yearn.finance accounts with their staked wallet address and allow poll voting permissions to those staking YFI only. Require a minimum staked value to prevent multiple accounts with small balance (greater than 0.01 YFI).

For: Enable poll voting for only those with staked YFI in the governance pool.

Against: Keep system as is with anyone voting on polls.

Poll:

  • For
  • Against

0 voters

3 Likes

Yes. Either for those staked or for all holders to signal.

4 Likes

Great proposal.

All in favor for ftaked YFI in governance or the yVault :slight_smile:

3 Likes

YES! Prevents PsyOps

4 Likes

I think I would like to take this a step further if it’s technologically possible. Allow people to “vote” on the polls with their verified amount of actual YFI. This way vote manipulation couldn’t happen, and no one would be incentivized to split up their YFI to various addresses to add more votes in the polls, and we would get a more realistic view of what a real vote would look like (1 vote in a poll is very different for someone who has 1 YFI vs 0.01 YFI, for example).

2 Likes

This has been discussed before, but a YIP for this makes sense if we want to protect and fully utilize the governance capabilities inherent in this system.

To do otherwise will eventually end up in a broken system, where anyone can throw up barriers due to fake numbers, just to try to slow down what will hopefully be a growing juggernaut.

I’m in favor of this 100%. Weighted voting makes sense if we’re trying to make this democratic, but I fear the day that big money interests take advantage of said systems to do worse things then to takeover a community run cryptocurrency and ecosystem as we’ve seen happen before.

If yEarn becomes a threat, entrenched money interest will do their best to slow down their competition by any means necessary. Small businesses already feel the effects of this kind of nefarious behavior when dealing with their own peers, let along giant companies, as seen in ad click scams meant to drain an opponent’s advertising coffers for no gain to the advertising company.

I’m for it, but with each proposal we should come with at least one idea about how to make true the proposal (technically speaking) and not just wait for the poor souls in charge of yearn to find a solution.

I completely agree, unfortunately I’m not technically capable of this. I have however seen other sites interface with wallets to read balances so I am sure it is possible. I am relying on the brilliant people of this community.

I’m for this but how does one retain anonymity if our wallets are attached?

2 Likes

Feel free to create a new forum account with an anonymous email linked to it if you’d like– unless you use identifying info in your forum account, you shouldn’t need to worry about it

Resolved by off-chain voting.