Discussion about SafeDAO voting power

To save for semantics, I agree, It doesn’t matter if the wallets are completely doxxed and we should avoid that for OPSEC reasons. Although, these are safe contracts that are directly connected to each other through ownership— effectively, the balance is 12M for one entity imo, it’s just spread across two accounts on chain.

Some accountability should be maintained if we are to adhere to the constitution or at least if number 2 has merit, then we should aim to identify entities that sway the vote by 12M. Which is a considerable percentage and enough to pass the quorum threshold by 2 million votes.

I also hear you, DAOs are not as ‘decentralized’ as they insist. Having worked for one, I can attest to that with experience. But, we do have the ability to change that and push for a more reasonable level of decentralization.

The point of decentralization is to sufficiently distribute power as to not have single points of failure or concentrated influence over a networks operation. SafeDAO as it is— without transferrability —is insufficiently decentralized at the protocol level. Because the smaller holders in concentration, must meet together in entirety to combat a few majority holders and cannot become majority holders themselves— without an unprecedented level of coordination.

If major holders can corroborate to ensure a directional vote, then the process gets corrupted by personal incentives.

Without the “largest voter” the vote was nearly balanced at 8.3 M to 11 M. Given a few more days, it boils down to a contested proposal and not a landslide decision: which for what it’s worth, any smaller voters would likely abstain from the vote after seeing 12M get added in opposition— because as you said:

Which I think is also pervasive to the argument itself, because 400 votes are not worthless and clouds overall judgment. At the end of the day, a few votes should/could be the deciding factor.

As I stated before as well, I really don’t mind what the vote turns out to be and am happy to participate in democratic processes regardless of the decision. Overall, freedom of choice will help the industry become resilient and long lasting.


TLDR: Going forward, I’d simply appreciate more clarity around voters, regardless of their token amts. and not overly invasive either.

I’d also like to see an ‘abstain from vote’ field added for those who either don’t want to vote because they have no opinion, have conflicts of interest or otherwise feel their votes won’t change the outcomes: at least this way we can possibly gain a better understanding of motives and proposal interpretation.

The less we jumble decisions together, the more clear it is to voice an opinion.

2 Likes