So the intention we had in mind when it came to this as the first tiebreaker was it would be who voted first with respect to the vote itself. Because your team and Tane voted in the exact same on chain vote, we moved to the second tiebreaker, which was snapshot. Coincidentally, it was also the exact same vote, so we moved to what was used as a tiebreaker in other elections for Uniswap (Uniswap delegation initiative) which was forum activity, to which Tane had more likes, earlier start date and “forum cred”.
We totally understand the concern as the ambiguity in the wording here is something we should have specified better. We didn’t think these tiebreakers would still not be enough. While, I understand the concern here, we think it wouldn’t make sense to look at the specific block of the vote as it:
- Doesn’t make sense to encourage behavior to rush in and submit a vote as soon as it goes live. While this can be a discussion for future, this hasn’t been an accepted line of reasoning in Uniswap.
- Defeats the purpose of a second tiebreaker. As we would never get to the second tiebreaker if we looked at the exact submission block.
- Snapshot votes as far as I’m aware, are unable to see the block you submitted in and only which specific vote you voted for/didn’t.
Again, we understand the frustration and this is just objectively what we thought was the outcome with the best intentions of the program being in mind, trying to be as unbiased as possible. Would love to hear the community’s opinion. Also, next Tuesday is the community call, we’ll cover this there also if you can join and voice your thoughts?
Thanks for understanding and appreciate the message.