Reward based on addresses rather than %veDOUGH


Early october, we had a small discussion on what i call “cooperative” rather than capitalistic way of building the DAO.

I would love to hear ideas on how we could adapt the whole scheme based on people rather than richness.

My idea is 1 address - 1 vote rather than %veDough held.

  • There should of course be limitations to avoid spams
    => Lower limit of vedough should be there
    => We can assume that current addresses is 1 per person (no interest in having 2 separate addresses today, seeing the high gas)

Idea is also to make a realistic cap on some incentives (this early nomvember big one is of course too late).
Like 4 times per year (=> every 3 month), there’s a max cap of X ETH value per address to be claimed in $Slice

Not systematic otherwise it would incentivise mutliple addresses per person of course.

It would need the big whales to agree on sharing their part but i have faith that the new world we’re building will not be a copy paste of current financial reality

Lookign forward to hear from the community !

Talk to you soon !

Antoine Billard a.k.a. Snook’

I don’t know how well this assumption holds up? I have two active wallets which are use weekly, another one that is more quarterly, and half a dozen more which admittedly see little to no use and I’ve probably lost access to a few :innocent:

I don’t know how I feel about this, it does bring up the risk of a whale spending 40000 usd to create stake 100usd on 200 wallets (assuming gas per tx is 100) to control 50% of the voting power. Being a whale it may be worth the spend.

Full disclosure: I dont consider myself a whale by a long shot. Ive only got a little more than 10k vedough. I would definitely vote against this proposal.

I don’t really believe in democracy.

Giving everyone equal voting power just to be fair doesnt make sense. People who have bought more dough have more skin in the game. Any decisions of the piedao disproportionately affect whales more.

I also don’t believe in communism. The world is unfair. Trying to force inequality is just another unfair system. People should be rewarded for their efforts based on how valuable to society they are.

If people have more money than others, why should they be penalized?

Also, if whales were genuinely interested in maintaining voting power, they could simply use multiple wallets.

If you’ve already got so much money and you want to keep your position of power in the dao, why not just create more votes?

The anonymous nature of crypto means there would be no way to verify ownership of multiple wallets.


I’m not whale either as you may have understood :slight_smile: Current bag is +/-6k aiming for 10k when escowed bridge is created.

So indeed, the verification of adresses if a need for a democratic approach !
Not sure what or how web3 will bring that up but it will be in the close future i hope.

On the reward side though, i don’t like the word communist either and that’s not what i wanted to implement

It’s not about cancelling all the rich APY of course not, they also have plans and invested significant amount of money in here.

My idea was to put once in a certain period a maximum value on the slice per address
(So that for example, big whale would get instead of 5 k$ on a month, we would cap it to 4k$ ; the 1k redistributed to the other addresses …)

It’s a non-constant rebalancing of rewards.

If non cosntant, would not incentivise the multiple address per person
If hard cap discussed and agreed, would redistribute to small holders.

I’m indeed asking to make the richest getting a bit less richer (but still gaining money)
=> 1 k$ might not be much for big whales
200$ might already change the world for small bag holders like me

Options of course that this rebalance provides veDough only ?

Happy to discuss

Definitely down for this part, I’ve been looking forward to governance systems that don’t just come down to plutocracies.

Like other people mentioned though, I don’t think this is an assumption we can make. I would be open to looking at solutions like Proof of Humanity but I’m pretty sure I know of at least a few people in the DAO that would not be happy with that idea. Maybe we vote on that? :stuck_out_tongue:

Interested to see how this discussion goes though, and would definitely recommend Vitalik’s writing on governance to anyone who hasn’t read it already.

I have read partly the articles, i will definitely read the three of them to have a point of view of what could be !

Thanks for sharing !

Maybe having an elastic governance token would help with what’s being discussed here?

I haven’t followed much since launch but they’ve been working on tackling these issues by allowing DAOs to launch on their platform.

As for sybil resistance, I use BrightID

I like the $4k idea because I originally got in, in hope for a safe and stable farm I could get into where I could sell rewards guilt free and live off of. Depending how you look at it, I could be a whale but I’m really diluted and I was still under $4k in rewards.

I’m not sure if an earnings cap is best for the protocol. Would public opinion be swayed for or against because of the redistribution? Would it increase or decrease TVL and other KPIs?

overall its certainly a interesting idea, but like it was mentioned above it has many flaws, cause you would def. need some Human Proof that one person / organisation does not open tons of accounts just to gain more…
also to be fair … you cant give the same voting rights to somebody which invested millions in it and someone which just puts down 100 USD…
… what i kinda like with the current veDOUGH that it requires active participation… when you scroll back in time a bit… it wasnt always that everybody was allowed to vote, you needed to have some kind of status / education …
… personally i feel a bit stupid if i should vote on something technical where i clearly have no expertise on it…
so i like the overall idea… but i doubt its doable, cause so many other factors come in play

I personally would be more interested in systems that are designed to embrace the Pareto distribution and work towards Pareto efficiency.

1 address = 1 vote at best is even but far from fair, and I agree with what has been said that the assumption of 1 address per person does not hold up. Identity for Sybil resistance is not desirable either, I believe in the predicament of the crypto-anarchist manifesto and the idea of providing the ability for individuals and groups to communicate and interact with each other in a totally anonymous manner.

Instead of thinking in terms of restriction and punishment, I would like to suggest we focus on ways to empower the ones that bring value and move the needle in the right direction. DeFi has a complex set of problems to solve and DAOs, such as PieDAO, are working on tackling them in a way that is at the same time cooperatively and competitively. I would suggest we concentrate on setting up reward structures for contributors so that we incentivize them to extract the maximum value out of their competence.

Create a structure where if you are competent you have the possibility of rising. Give more to the ones who do right instead of penalizing those who have more.

A good paper on Long-term alignment in DAOs.