All ToCs twice as many votes as a WAGDIE. 
No differentiation.
2 Likes
I have since thought about this more. Iβm in support of tokens of concord offering increased voting power.
2 Likes
Flame of 21 and Her Ember should still remain with more votes than the rest, at the very least.
Iβd 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 everyoneβs points. Adding my thoughts to all themes I saw roughly ordered by agree β disagree β¦
- 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 βalready deadβ 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 peopleβs labor (Iβve voted in favor of every proposal for this use of conclave funds).
- Iβm also open to creating ToCβs 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 isnβt an effective solution since the original laborers may have sold, given away, or burned their ToCs by now.
Increase voting power of engeged members
- Iβm open to increasing the types and distribution of ToCβs for this β egs a new βI votedβ token, anytime you vote in a snapshot you this token, a new ToC for serving on the conclave council, β¦ .
- retroactively changing voting power seems unfair and unnecessary.
dilute unengaged members
- unnecessary β this happens naturally since they donβt vote
dilute whale voting power
- ineffective β 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 β ToCs already have sufficient other sources of value (rarity, inclusion in token gated communities, roles in the narrative, searing later on, β¦)
- Dangerous β 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?
YES
Should we have variance in voting power for ToCs?
NO
Should a ToC have more vote than a WAGDIE?
YES - at least for now, theyβre 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 - Iβm a fan of the initial 1/2/3 allocation of Ash/Ember/Flame and Iβm actually in favor of a tiered system for all ToCsβ¦ but at the very least I think key ToCs for each faction should carry a bonus
3 Likes
These are my sentiments as well. +1 @TheGoldenEel
2 Likes
I originally thought tokens should have different voting weights depending on βearnedβ vs βsacrificeβ, 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 donβt 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.
Weβve seen a scenario (WIP10) where βwhalesβ with 50+ characters (not tokens) went against the majority and almost swayed the vote in a direction most people didnβt want it to go. WIP10 had almost 5 times more individual βyesβ votes than βnoβ 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 Iβm willing to take and I donβt think itβs going to happen. Just go back and look at the votes, several of these whales have 0-4 ToC. I donβt think theyβre going to start giving up their characters over this. And even if they do, itβs going to be up to each individual, ie not a systematic issue.
Again, I donβt want perfect to be the enemy of good for this one. I think thereβs 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 πͺπ’ππ«π± π±π¬ π’π‘π¦π± π΄π₯ππ± β π°ππ¦π‘, π₯π’π―π’ π¦π± π¦π° ππ€ππ¦π« ππ’π©π¬π΄:
ππ’ ππ―π’ π³π’π―πΆ π π©π¬π°π’ π±π¬ π±π₯π’ 30 π±π¬π¨π’π«π° π¬π£ π π¬π«π π¬π―π‘ π«π’π’π‘π’π‘ π£π¬π― π±π₯π’ ππ’ππ―π¦π«π€ π―π’π³π’ππ©.
ππ₯π¦π° π΄π¦π©π© ππ©π±π’π― π±π₯π’ π²π±π¦π©π¦π±πΆ π¬π£ π±π₯π’ ππ¬β π±π―π’πͺπ’π«π‘π¬π²π°π©πΆ.
ππ’ π‘π¬ π«π¬π± π¨π«π¬π΄ π¦π£ π¦π± π΄π¦π©π© ππ²π―π« π±π₯π’ ππ¬β π¦π« π±π₯π’ ππ―π¬π π’π°π° πͺππ¨π¦π«π€ π¦π± π‘π’π£π©ππ±π¦π¬π«ππ―πΆ.
ππ₯ππ± ππ’π¦π«π€ π°ππ¦π‘, π±π₯π’π―π’ π₯ππ° ππ’π’π« π π₯π²π€π’ π¦π«π£π©π²π΅ π¬π£ π±π¬π¨π’π«π° π£π―π¬πͺ π±π₯π’ π΄ππ― ππ± π₯ππ«π‘ (ππ’π‘ππ©π©π¦π¬π«π°).
π π’π ππ²π°π’ π±π₯π’πΆ π΄π’π―π’ ππ΄ππ―π‘π’π‘ π£π¬π― πππ―π±π¦π π¦πππ±π¦π¬π« π―π’π€ππ―π‘π©π’π°π° π¬π£ π‘π’ππ±π₯/π°π²π―π³π¦π³ππ©, π±π₯π¦π° π π¬π²π©π‘ πͺππ€π«π¦π£πΆ π¬π«π’π° π³π¬π±π¦π«π€ ππΆ π π©ππ―π€π’ πͺππ―π€π¦π« ππ° πΆπ¬π² π ππ« π―π’π±ππ¦π« πΆπ¬π²π― π΄ππ€π‘π¦π’ ππ«π‘ π¦π±βπ° 1 π³π¬π±π’ ππ«π‘ ππ©π°π¬ π€ππ¦π« 1-2 π³π¬π±π’π° π¦π« π±π₯π’ ππ―π¬π π’π°π°.
β ππ’π©π¦π’π³π’ π΄π’ π΄π¦π©π© ππ’ ππ’π±π±π’π― π¦π«π£π¬π―πͺπ’π‘ ππ£π±π’π― π±π₯π’ π΄ππ―, π±π₯π’ π π©ππ―π¦π£π¦π ππ±π¦π¬π« π¬π£ π±π₯π’ πͺπ’π‘ππ©π©π¦π¬π«π° ππ²π―ππ¬π°π’, ππ«π‘ π°π’ππ―π¦π«π€.
β ππͺ π π²π―π―π’π«π±π©πΆ π¦π« π£ππ³π¬π― π¬π£ 2 π³π¬π±π’π° ππ’π― ππ¬β, ππ²π± πͺπΆ π π₯ππ«π€π’ πͺπΆ π°π±ππ«π π’ ππ£π±π’π― πππ¬π³π’ π°ππ¦π‘ π¦π° π―π’π³π’ππ©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 whalesβ¦
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 itβs 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, β¦). 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 doesnβt 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 wouldnβt want to retract from their enjoyment/participation completely β but Iβm 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 βyeetβ 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 whatβs 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.
- Overall investment/ownership
- 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)β¦
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:
1 Like
Brennen didnβt 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.
2 Likes
WIP 10:
248 character votes + 141 ToC βYesβ
359 character votes + 42 ToC βNoβ
30 vote difference
If worth 2x:
248 character votes + 282 ToC βYesβ
359 character votes + 84 ToC βNoβ
87 vote difference
That widens the margin by almost 3x. I would say thatβs pretty meaningful.
Disagree still. You canβt 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 itβs a risk Iβd be willing to take.
Lastly, just to clarify, I am in no way trying to discourage whales. But I donβt 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 Iβm confusedβ¦ Theyβre also ToCs that will weigh on conclave decisions too though, right?
New snapshots are only for those tokens, but that doesnβt exclude them from Conclave Governance snapshots too?
1 Like