Discussion: Change All Concords to Have Voting Power of 2

All ToCs twice as many votes as a WAGDIE. :+1:

No differentiation.


I have since thought about this more. I’m in support of tokens of concord offering increased voting power.


Flame of 21 and Her Ember should still remain with more votes than the rest, at the very least.

I’d go as far as to say they should have 3x voting power

wow going into this I was thinking they should all be 1, even the flame & ember. Interesting to hear everyone’s points. Adding my thoughts to all themes I saw roughly ordered by agree β†’ disagree …

  • Often they replace a burned WAGDIE
  • Upcoming events are likely to burn many more WAGDIE
  • There are significantly less Concords than WAGDIE

I agree with the problem of losing voting power from engaging in burn events. I think there should be at least a 1:1 relationship between burned wagdies and voting power received but this can happen in other ways (eg give 1 voting power to the wagdies from the β€˜already dead’ collection that lets people mint a black and white version of their burned wagdies).

recognize different forms of engagement (money vs labor)

  • I like retroactive payment for people’s labor (I’ve voted in favor of every proposal for this use of conclave funds).
  • I’m also open to creating ToC’s that get distributed for this purpose. Maybe the conclave can get an ability to mint artificer crystals or field notes or a new ToC in recognition of labor. The quantity of these tokens can also vary based on the amount/quality of labor provided.
  • Doing this through retroactively changing voting power isn’t an effective solution since the original laborers may have sold, given away, or burned their ToCs by now.

Increase voting power of engeged members

  • I’m open to increasing the types and distribution of ToC’s for this – egs a new β€˜I voted’ token, anytime you vote in a snapshot you this token, a new ToC for serving on the conclave council, … .
  • retroactively changing voting power seems unfair and unnecessary.

dilute unengaged members

  • unnecessary – this happens naturally since they don’t vote

dilute whale voting power

  • ineffective – Whales could buy high vote power tokens, or a higher number of wagdies to make up their lower voting power per wagdie

increase the value of (rare) ToCs

  • Unnecessary – ToCs already have sufficient other sources of value (rarity, inclusion in token gated communities, roles in the narrative, searing later on, …)
  • Dangerous – This opens a can of worms around who gets to set the voting power, and introduces incentives to max the voting power of the ToCs one holds.

Should a ToC have more vote than a WAGDIE?


Should we have variance in voting power for ToCs?


Should a ToC have more vote than a WAGDIE?

YES - at least for now, they’re much scarcer than WAGDIE and most have been earned through acts of courage, faith, and contribution, so an extra incentive makes sense to me

Should we have variance in voting power for ToCs?

YES - I’m a fan of the initial 1/2/3 allocation of Ash/Ember/Flame and I’m actually in favor of a tiered system for all ToCs… but at the very least I think key ToCs for each faction should carry a bonus


These are my sentiments as well. +1 @TheGoldenEel


I originally thought tokens should have different voting weights depending on β€˜earned’ vs β€˜sacrifice’, OGs like Flame of 21, rarity etc. On a surface level, it makes sense.

However, after thinking about it more and reading the comments here, I realize just how subjective/complex that is. I don’t want perfect to be the enemy of good for this one.

This is really about giving active community members increased voting power. Is giving all tokens 2 votes a perfect implementation? No. Will it help? Absolutely.

We’ve seen a scenario (WIP10) where β€˜whales’ with 50+ characters (not tokens) went against the majority and almost swayed the vote in a direction most people didn’t want it to go. WIP10 had almost 5 times more individual β€˜yes’ votes than β€˜no’ votes, yet it barley passed.

Regardless of how you feel about that specific proposal, any election where you get 5 times the amount of votes as your opponent, yet still have a strong chance of losing, is a flawed election.

You could make the augment that with this new system, whales could yeet all their characters and get double the votes. This is a risk I’m willing to take and I don’t think it’s going to happen. Just go back and look at the votes, several of these whales have 0-4 ToC. I don’t think they’re going to start giving up their characters over this. And even if they do, it’s going to be up to each individual, ie not a systematic issue.

Again, I don’t want perfect to be the enemy of good for this one. I think there’s a need for it and IMO this is good enough for now. We could always change it later once we know what Tokens actually do and more are released.

1 Like

β„‘ π”ͺπ”’π”žπ”«π”± 𝔱𝔬 𝔒𝔑𝔦𝔱 𝔴π”₯π”žπ”± β„‘ π”°π”žπ”¦π”‘, π”₯𝔒𝔯𝔒 𝔦𝔱 𝔦𝔰 π”žπ”€π”žπ”¦π”« π”Ÿπ”’π”©π”¬π”΄:

π”šπ”’ π”žπ”―π”’ 𝔳𝔒𝔯𝔢 𝔠𝔩𝔬𝔰𝔒 𝔱𝔬 𝔱π”₯𝔒 30 𝔱𝔬𝔨𝔒𝔫𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔠𝔬𝔫𝔠𝔬𝔯𝔑 𝔫𝔒𝔒𝔑𝔒𝔑 𝔣𝔬𝔯 𝔱π”₯𝔒 π”–π”’π”žπ”―π”¦π”«π”€ π”―π”’π”³π”’π”žπ”©.

𝔗π”₯𝔦𝔰 𝔴𝔦𝔩𝔩 π”žπ”©π”±π”’π”― 𝔱π”₯𝔒 𝔲𝔱𝔦𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔢 𝔬𝔣 𝔱π”₯𝔒 𝔗𝔬ℭ 𝔱𝔯𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔑𝔬𝔲𝔰𝔩𝔢.
π”šπ”’ 𝔑𝔬 𝔫𝔬𝔱 𝔨𝔫𝔬𝔴 𝔦𝔣 𝔦𝔱 𝔴𝔦𝔩𝔩 π”Ÿπ”²π”―π”« 𝔱π”₯𝔒 𝔗𝔬ℭ 𝔦𝔫 𝔱π”₯𝔒 𝔭𝔯𝔬𝔠𝔒𝔰𝔰 π”ͺπ”žπ”¨π”¦π”«π”€ 𝔦𝔱 π”‘π”’π”£π”©π”žπ”±π”¦π”¬π”«π”žπ”―π”Ά.

𝔗π”₯π”žπ”± π”Ÿπ”’π”¦π”«π”€ π”°π”žπ”¦π”‘, 𝔱π”₯𝔒𝔯𝔒 π”₯π”žπ”° π”Ÿπ”’π”’π”« π”ž π”₯𝔲𝔀𝔒 𝔦𝔫𝔣𝔩𝔲𝔡 𝔬𝔣 𝔱𝔬𝔨𝔒𝔫𝔰 𝔣𝔯𝔬π”ͺ 𝔱π”₯𝔒 π”΄π”žπ”― π”žπ”± π”₯π”žπ”«π”‘ (π”π”’π”‘π”žπ”©π”©π”¦π”¬π”«π”°).

π”…π”’π” π”žπ”²π”°π”’ 𝔱π”₯𝔒𝔢 𝔴𝔒𝔯𝔒 π”žπ”΄π”žπ”―π”‘π”’π”‘ 𝔣𝔬𝔯 π”­π”žπ”―π”±π”¦π” π”¦π”­π”žπ”±π”¦π”¬π”« π”―π”’π”€π”žπ”―π”‘π”©π”’π”°π”° 𝔬𝔣 π”‘π”’π”žπ”±π”₯/π”°π”²π”―π”³π”¦π”³π”žπ”©, 𝔱π”₯𝔦𝔰 𝔠𝔬𝔲𝔩𝔑 π”ͺπ”žπ”€π”«π”¦π”£π”Ά 𝔬𝔫𝔒𝔰 𝔳𝔬𝔱𝔦𝔫𝔀 π”Ÿπ”Ά π”ž π”©π”žπ”―π”€π”’ π”ͺπ”žπ”―π”€π”¦π”« π”žπ”° 𝔢𝔬𝔲 π” π”žπ”« π”―π”’π”±π”žπ”¦π”« 𝔢𝔬𝔲𝔯 π”΄π”žπ”€π”‘π”¦π”’ π”žπ”«π”‘ 𝔦𝔱’𝔰 1 𝔳𝔬𝔱𝔒 π”žπ”«π”‘ π”žπ”©π”°π”¬ π”€π”žπ”¦π”« 1-2 𝔳𝔬𝔱𝔒𝔰 𝔦𝔫 𝔱π”₯𝔒 𝔭𝔯𝔬𝔠𝔒𝔰𝔰.

β„‘ π”Ÿπ”’π”©π”¦π”’π”³π”’ 𝔴𝔒 𝔴𝔦𝔩𝔩 π”Ÿπ”’ π”Ÿπ”’π”±π”±π”’π”― 𝔦𝔫𝔣𝔬𝔯π”ͺ𝔒𝔑 π”žπ”£π”±π”’π”― 𝔱π”₯𝔒 π”΄π”žπ”―, 𝔱π”₯𝔒 π” π”©π”žπ”―π”¦π”£π”¦π” π”žπ”±π”¦π”¬π”« 𝔬𝔣 𝔱π”₯𝔒 π”ͺπ”’π”‘π”žπ”©π”©π”¦π”¬π”«π”° 𝔭𝔲𝔯𝔭𝔬𝔰𝔒, π”žπ”«π”‘ π”°π”’π”žπ”―π”¦π”«π”€.
β„‘ π”žπ”ͺ 𝔠𝔲𝔯𝔯𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔩𝔢 𝔦𝔫 π”£π”žπ”³π”¬π”― 𝔬𝔣 2 𝔳𝔬𝔱𝔒𝔰 𝔭𝔒𝔯 𝔗𝔬ℭ, π”Ÿπ”²π”± π”ͺ𝔢 𝔠π”₯π”žπ”«π”€π”’ π”ͺ𝔢 π”°π”±π”žπ”«π” π”’ π”žπ”£π”±π”’π”― π”žπ”Ÿπ”¬π”³π”’ π”°π”žπ”¦π”‘ 𝔦𝔰 π”―π”’π”³π”’π”žπ”©π”’π”‘

1 Like

Couple things wanted to touch on. Retroactive payments had came up before and every-time the majority has been very vocal about no retroactive payments.

Any proposals of those doing work and creating things that were funded, were funded based on work they are going to do / not retroactive payment for work done before.

We already had WIP 9 pass Snapshot and these will be the tokens used to reward community members. 36 will be distributed for 6 months, with 6 granted every month by 1 CR each (with the strict rule that they cannot give awards to any current members including themselves).

1 Like

The WAGDIE whales have ~100 WAGDIES, so voting power of ToCs would need to be a bit more than 2 in order to meaningfully dilute these members. Even then, they could just buy ToCs to become ToC whales…

any election where you get 5 times the amount of votes as your opponent, yet still have a strong chance of losing, is a flawed election

Most DAOs weight by the amount of tokens one holds, and imo it’s fair because those holders have more at risk. But if we want to reduce the decision making power of large holders, we could try other voting methods (quadratic voting, twitter polls, discord votes, …). We have a pretty good discord community, so discord votes might work well for us if we want more even voting power among engaged members.

Adding more voting power to TOC doesn’t resolve this, as @isk pointed out anyone can purchase them. We would need SBT (soulbound or non-transferrable TOC) to eliminate this issue, with heavier voting power.

On the topic of whales, participating in voting may be the only way they are able to participate in WAGDIE and I wouldn’t want to retract from their enjoyment/participation completely – but I’m not opposed to an exploration of ideas such as non-transferable tokens, etc. to balance things out among other participants.

Moving beyond coin voting governance Vitalik has much more experience than any of us and has thought of ways to reduce/address those kinds of inequalities as well as also considering ways to punish those who abuse or try to use majority influence to attack/harm the process.

Proof of personhood systems, proof of participation & quadratic voting are definitely great considerations.

1 Like

Sounds like the ultimate goal is to have increased voting power without having some implied or speculated value, which is a hard task in itself. Im for having increased voting power in relation to event and contribution/engagement to the project. I want to see someone who chose to participate in the project/events see a risk/reward for their participation.

But poses an issue of someone coming in and buying 15 wagdie, staking into a war and now has 30 votes in exchange. At the same time someone could β€œyeet” all wagdie, survive the war and now how x amount more votes. I dont think they should be a 1 for 1 always. But i do agree there should be some introductory increase. maybe just 2 votes for 1 concord for now to showthat the people holding do indeed get a larger vote due to involvment/participation.

I think with what’s happening in the war now we are finding the ability to have more diversity in voting. There is going to have a weight between two encampments that equal the whole of the project (from what im seeing). We have seen a 1/1 who had only 1 vote now gain how many tokens? was it 15? @brennen_eth

In the end I would like to see a couple of balances taken in consideration.

  1. Overall investment/ownership
  2. Participation
    3.Risk to reward scenario

Overall its a very complex balance, but feel were on the right track. The easiest solution is to just give every ToC a +1 vote. Or depending on the significance of the person/value/weight they hold in the story of shaping this world, should have greater weight

1 Like

UPDATE (leaving original message below for posterity and for those who responded to it, but I was WRONG)…

Those tokens although they have their own snapshots, with ONLY those tokens as voting mechanics… our main CONCLAVE still counts those tokens as well.

--------------- old message below with some inaccuracies… there are two new spaces, but those coins still count in our conclave voting too.------------------------------------------

Just to make clear. Those votes are in separate snapshot spaces and not tied to the Conclave/Governance. Still is a big influence in whatever the devs have planned for both those new snapshots, but more than likely will be strictly tied to lore/story and certainly is outside of this Conclave/Governance.

Conclave Governance only relates to tokens in: Snapshot

New Snapshots, with completely separate proposals tied to each of their respective tokens:

Agora: Snapshot
Serpent: Snapshot

1 Like

Brennen didn’t get any extra Band of the Bulwark tokens for Detriti.
He got 24 based on his staked army.

Only difference from Detriti was the skull token.


WIP 10:
248 character votes + 141 ToC β€œYes”
359 character votes + 42 ToC β€œNo”
30 vote difference

If worth 2x:
248 character votes + 282 ToC β€œYes”
359 character votes + 84 ToC β€œNo”
87 vote difference

That widens the margin by almost 3x. I would say that’s pretty meaningful.

Disagree still. You can’t purchase tokens at the same rate/price you can with characters. Plus most signs point to them being deflationary soon. And even if you could, I doubt people are going to start purchasing only Tokens instead of characters now with the sole purpose of gaining votes. I could be wrong, but like I said it’s a risk I’d be willing to take.

Lastly, just to clarify, I am in no way trying to discourage whales. But I don’t think giving tokens 2x voting power would be perceived as a slight to them.

1 Like

This war just created many more ToCs, especially for folks that could afford to send lots of wagdies to battle, as Coldworld pointed out.

See comments above re: these tokens.

Maybe I’m confused… They’re also ToCs that will weigh on conclave decisions too though, right?
New snapshots are only for those tokens, but that doesn’t exclude them from Conclave Governance snapshots too?

1 Like