Framework update for the next elections v1 (provided by NDC Ops Team)

NDC Community and nodes Ops team
1

Dear community,

We are glad to present the concept of next elections.
You are welcome to provide your feedback :heart_hands:

6 Likes
2

Hi, thx for sharing. I made some comments on the previous version, can I ask why all that feedback is deleted and a new document is shared? Framework update for the next elections v1 - HackMD

Apparently with this proposal, the previous FVP would apply in its entirety but would not be technically enforced, could you please elaborate?

I assume a new EIC will be appointed as indicated in the FVP.

3

Hi atrox1382. We published a version without comments to prepare it for the voting. I put link to version with comments so everyone can see it. Regarding FVP question - it means that candidates and voters does need to agree to comply with FVP but we will not implement safeguards (so it is on their own responsibility to comply). Mechanism to submit reports for TC will still be there

4

So TC is responsible for enforcing the FVP and ensuring fair elections? Don’t you see a conflict of interest there?

I think that you will need to facilitate the appointment of a new EIC, given that you are asking users to comply with FVP. And if not, you should amend the FVP.

2 Likes
5

Thank You, we will rework this part while working with the eligibility criteria this and next week.

1 Like
6

I don’t think we should lower the threshold amount because it increases the token’s value and gives it more utility. I would like to remind you that Ops team has devised a quite elegant system for tracking activity to compensate for the “wealth” of individual participants, so no major “whale” can outvote the active community

4 Likes
7

Great truths are always simple.We should lengthen the time NEAR pledge redemption, and make the long-termist the stake as much as possible,Then one vote for each staked token. Simple as that

1 Like
8

The question asked in this poll is flawed.

There should be at least one more option to select: “Quadratic voting without Sybil resistance is an oxymoron and doomed to fail”

1 Like
9

Why not a custom configuration of nada.bot?

3 Likes
10

Hi Sine,

Thanks for sharing this proposal. I finally got around to reading it in detail and have voted on the poll regarding the threshold. Couple of questions;

As a sitting TC member, I am concerned about the lack of safeguards regarding the Fair Voter Policy.

  1. I understand that we have compressed deadlines and it may not be technically possible to implement technical safeguards, but I would like to ask what other preventive measures may be in place. For instance: why not keep the I Am Human verification on top of the Stake and Activity rewards?
  2. Another great option that has been developing fast would be nada.bot. This would also be consistent with the current trend the ecosystem is moving in as it is the solution being implemented by Potlock, which in turn seems to be the way to fund public goods going forward.
  3. I would warn against deferring to a third party (TC in this case) what we know now will be an issue later. TC, like most of the NDC, is a very young body trying to find its way. We are not well suited for dealing with large scale election manipulation in a tight deadline. This would have to involve a third party, which has not been approved by other TC members (but I do support and want).

Overall, I welcome the move towards stake weighed voting and activity tracker. I would just urge the Ops team to consider keeping the existing Human verification or implementing new solutions such as Nada bot to avoid obvious issues from arising.

1 Like
11

Hi Satojandro!

  1. I Am Human verification does not provide big value as identity can be aquired for very cheap. Meanwhile it adds some issues:
  • Additional piece of infrastracture to use
  • Additional friction for users to be able to vote (and forcing users to scan faces in web3 is a little bit awkward)
  1. We did consider nada.bot but at the moment decided that snapshot is a good enough for gaming prevention. Detailed rationale for Sybil resistance outlined in the document
  2. Although we are not prepared for large scale manipulation it seems barely feasibly to game the system with unknown design as snapshot is prior start of OPS team working you have to forsee the design or your gaming scenarios will be by far not optimal.
    Thank you for the comments - we do need to prepare a different approach to identity layer going forward as we are not able to rely on the snapshot all the time
12

I Am Human verification does not provide big value as identity can be aquired for very cheap.

The cost of acquisition of of a ‘real human’ (any human) verification was flagged prior to the first elections and are indeed an ongoing problem, which is why the improvement for future elections would be to do human verification plus minimum staked amount.

We did consider nada.bot but at the moment decided that snapshot is a good enough for gaming prevention.

Would you please be able to share the document with the snapshot? Curious to know which account were included (including mine!). Perhaps perusing this document will help me understand the current measures better.