[Feedback Requested] Gov. Framework Polling Round 4**

Definitely background is missing in this voting and consequence analysis or narrative about possible alternative proposals. We need to have educated polls, with research share. Rather than asking for few random opinions based on feelings.

  1. I agree that NEAR is highly concentrated, and this makes a foundation for pushing back stake weighted voting.
  2. With stake weighted voting, validators won’t be able to use delegated NEAR for voting. They will only be able to use NEAR they own to vote.
  3. Any user who is staking will be able to vote with stake weighted voting.
  4. In the proposed NDC v1, HoM will have most of the governance power.

For v1 Constitution Ratification and Elections system, the minimum criteria are

  • is not passed through central planning
  • legitimate enough. I would claim that any temporal / social solution are not legitimate enough because they won’t represent enough of the ecosystem (for example NEARSocial is great but it’s adoption is far from NEAR staking. Furthemore it’s hard to say how this will be represented, and not gamed).
  • not gameable.
  • will rather have it sooner than later (we don’t want Ethereum PoS story again with pushing back the v1 by years.

I’m supporting stake weighted voting because it meets the criteria above.
Pros of stake weighted voting:

  • it’s easy to understand, and clear how to deliver it.
  • it’s not gameable


  • susceptible for collusion (big whales can push their candidacy)

IMHO, I won’t see that in v1 collusion will be a case: to try to take over the Gov in the day 1, especially if there is only a limited and small treasury at the beginning — it won’t be worth and take that risk and turn against the community.
Moreover there is a social consensus. If Whales will do that , we will get even stronger, and we will push for the new system to eliminate that sooner.

  • The candidates must run for elections (according to our process) — so there is lot of transparency anyway. Only candidates who will meet all stage of the run procedure will be able to apply for the final election. So again - the risk is close to zero.
  • moreover we are discussing to limit the term significantly rather then having HoS running for 2 years… 2 years is the entirety of the NEAR mainnet.

Finally, if stake weighted voting won’t work, it will only show that we have bigger problem, and NF did a wrong job with putting so much NEAR in entities who are not aligned with decentralization and fair economy.


Marketing DAO has 50k monthly hard cap, and probably will have the same amount in NDC.


We have a lot of projects in our Ecosystem with different tokens; furthermore, some people are stacking tokens on DEXes or exchanges. I believe staking and bringing value to the Community are two different things.

For example, wallet mob. Near has only 220 tokens in staking. Does it mean that EK’s opinion is not matter for Near Community?


you can mobilise your people to vote 50k then, so you support less projects in marketing dao and your dream for regional dao can come to pass… :man_shrugging:

1 Like

Yes, but I’m more about decentralization and multiple grassroots DAOs. I definitely won’t nominate myself to the regional community DAO councils; I want to save regional guilds; we have already spent thousands of dollars on regional community and hubs development in the past.


I know you very well, you’ve never been a fan of decentralisation.

Here is an example of you where you want the voice & power of the people in a community to be collected & given to some certain 5 people only.

you want to save them but you are the one proposing the idea, what exactly do Marketing DAO wanna be responsible for? always finding a way to side line projects.


:writing_hand: :writing_hand:

1 Like

I think it is a very good idea. We had experimented with a similar model with Community DAO. Regional Community DAOs could operate more independently and efficiently.


Since the existence of Regional Communities is not mentioned at all in the NDC governance model, it is necessary for us to discuss it together here. Thanks to anyone who has brought the issue to this forum

For me personally, regardless of the vision, mission or different regional activities, the existence of regional communities / guilds still needs to be continued

If there is sentiment or dislike towards the performance of several reps in the region, it will be evaluated in a transparent and open manner and let those who are less committed will be eliminated by themselves.

That’s why we need Regional Communities DAO to be responsible for directing and evaluating KPIs.


@Dacha people have multiple accounts, so it’s hard to make a solid, sybil proof system.
With stake weighted voting any account which is staking will have voting credits.

BTW, in Cosmos this mechanism works at scale. Even with controversial proposals it worked surprisingly well.

mob.near has multiple accounts as well (kotleta.near, mooob.near, etc). I have five Near accounts.

My friend stakes Ref Finance coins and doesn’t stake Near. How he can participate in an election?

Yes, but Cosmos is long behind us in every way. Near is on the top of the web3 world, and our Community is able to create its own solution.


Nice, @Ozymandius is there a deadline date to this voting period?

1 Like

This is out of the scope for v1. In proposed v1 gov power is delegated to House of Stake, so the Voting Body is limited.
Again, it’s better to deliver good enough solution in few months than spend years on ideal solution without delivering.

That being said, I made a proposal for v2, and this is part of the spec. It will take time to develop and it requires a strong proof of humanity.

Yes, but Cosmos is long behind us in every way.

I’m not so sure. In which ways it is behind?
Cosmos definitely has much bigger adoption, is more decentralized and has working on chain governance, can execute 10k+ tps while being sybil resistant…

Keeping it open for a couple of weeks, most likely will incorporate feedback by middle of this week based on the trends


Excellent point- I truly believe that the primary determinant of participation levels in V1 would be the legitimacy attributed to it by the NEAR community.

But that begs the question- what measures can we take, to ensure that the system ‘could’ be considered as ‘legitimate’ ? One obvious way- would be make the ‘actions that determined the outcomes’ transparent.

For example; for me to trust the ‘decisions made as a result of this poll’ what I demand would be- that the voters list is public. Since in my mind there lays an already formed assumption (which formed as a result of my readings in gov forums about such instances recorded in public in the past) that governance forums are the easiest targets for Sybil attacks. IF I was a determined actor of malice, these polls would be my easiest consensus manufacturing mechanism.



I agree.

IMHO, the legitimiacy will be achieved through social, transparent activity:

  1. public reviews of the constitution
  2. public, transparent and social process for elections. Candidates will have to run for elections, not jus propose their candidacy.

and stake weighted voting will just cement data, as the natural way of representing NEAR.


I would say yes to this, having regional hubs would best reach local communities on a large scale and get much work done faster. The marketing Dao cannot continue making decisions for the African community as there is no African amongst the marketing council. Outsiders cannot relate to our beliefs and culture. No one can make decisions for Africans except Africans. Thank you.


100% i agree with you, no one will make decisions for us, and we need our African regional hub


You meant documented, time-stamped versions with feedback and suggestions from the community-- and NOT IN A GOOGLE DOC :zipper_mouth_face:??

1 Like

As you can see Community and many leaders doesn’t support the solution.