All the temperature/consensus checks so far have had between one to three voters.
Solution
As consensus can’t be reached with soft governance yet, I propose to try to achieve it with ‘hard’ governance.
This would imply that proposing delegates (currently it’s Dharma and Gauntlet) would identify pressing matters and set up a Preliminary Voting on them to decide the solution.
By Preliminary Voting, I mean voting to establish consensus without implementing the code changes.
Example
As we can gather from the Uniswap Community call, the Community considers the liquidity mining program matter pressing.
One of the delegates could propose to vote on:
the budget for the liquidity mining program (like the temperature check snapshot)
the pools that get included.
Then the final, binary vote would decide the actual outcome with code implementation.
The budget could be defined by either an average or a median of all the votes cast.
This way, every vote will matter - as it will push the final number to one direction or another.
Do you approve of the usage of Preliminary Voting?
Will never personally delegate votes to dharma as I saw their two initial votes as quick power/money grabs that woulda been detrimental to the uni community
I’m not asking anyone to delegate to Dharma or Gauntlet in this proposal.
I just state the fact that these two delegates currently are the only public delegates who are able to submit proposals.
So this Preliminary Voting currently can’t work without at least one of them agreeing to do it.
But I highly doubt that any of them will agree to do it if there’s no public support of the request for them to do so.
One of the problems i think is the the snapshots don’t appear on the uniswap page(https://snapshot.page/#/uniswap) only with a direct link. I check the snaphot page more often than every topic on this forum
Your idea of adopting Preliminary Voting in process of proposals is lofty but does it entirely eliminate code changes from the process? Please illuminate further.
The code changes are done in the final voting.
During preliminary voting, we can decide the specifics.
For example, if the result of the budget voting for liquidity program would go:
0 - 25%
2.5 mil - 10%
5 mil - 25%
7.5 mil - 10%
10 mil - 25%
12.5 mil - 10%
We could agree on making the budget 5.5 million, or 5 million.
Then we could decide on the pairs included in the program.
The final proposal would introduce the code changes that reflect the agreement the Community have come to: A,B,C pairs participate in the program for a,b,c amount of UNI.