Proposal Burn, UNI Lock up for the duration of the vote

Proposal Discussion
1

I propose a 2% UNI burn when a proposal is being submitted. This will prevent big groups from being able to brute force their will onto the UNI community. Furthermore, I also propose that the UNI that is used to create a governance proposal be locked until the voting is done. This would also apply to people who cast their votes as well. I added another poll so that we can decide as a community on what a fair % of uni to be burned on submission of a proposal would be.

EDIT: if this garners enough attention and votes from the community, I will need help going through the necessary channels in order to make this a real proposal that we can vote on. Thank you to all and together we can make UNI “function” in a beneficial way for the community.

UNI Burn/ Lock Up
  • Yes, a proposal spam deterrence would be great.
  • No, keep the current system.

0 voters

% burned on proposal
  • 2% burn
  • 3% burn
  • 5% burn
  • 10% burn

0 voters

9 Likes
2

This a good response to Dharma repeated attacks on protocol. I think that a proposal has to give value to the entire protocol

5 Likes
3

please cast your vote

2 Likes
4

done, I will always agree with fair proposals

1 Like
5

Voted, burning a% of the supply helps to decrease supply and increase demand and it will help reduce the number of unnecessary proposals

4 Likes
6

totally agree, we need some sort of firewall to prevent spamming of greedy proposals

3 Likes
8

I do like the burning idea. People would never vote if it burned their tokens though. I think it should take a .1%-2% of community out. This could potentially increase voting

2 Likes
9

Maybe we should just vote on burning the entire 1st year treasury instead?

5 Likes
10

watch dharma is going to propose the same shit again in a few days.

3 Likes
11

I advocate for these parameters:
1% burn
Burn only if Rejected
Rationale: 1% seems like enough discouragement for spamming. Winning and accepted proposals shouldn’t be punished. Also, freeriding problem is a thing.

8 Likes
12

Done voting here. Anything else?

13

This will lessen attacks

14

Agreed with this one. 2% regardless of outcome is too much. 1% on rejection is a decent compromise.

4 Likes
15

:ok_hand:will vote for this (if it comes up to vote)

16

Looks like there is enough attention and votes to warrant taking this to the next step.

17

This is a great idea, but I wanted to share a possible tweak that just came to me.

What if instead of burning the tokens, they were distributed proportionately to all the tokens voted in each address and the time spent holding that vote?

This might help encourage quorum, because if someone’s side is on the losing end of a vote why would they throw away gas fees to participate? Instead the it provides additional incentives for holding on to tokens and locking them up in a vote and frequent participants in the democracy collectively grow their stake by a tiny bit organically.

I don’t know the low level network specifics enough to know if the logistics of that would be feasible, but if so wouldn’t it help kill two birds with one stone?

18

Incentive for vote seems great, but not much more that the gas consumes. This would encourage small holders to vote but I don’t like to see votes only given because of incentive, so it should be a incentive for each address that votes but not proportional to the uni on that address.

1 Like