GIP-04: Expand Eligible Voting GFI

Proposals
1

Summary

In an effort to open up voting to the most strongly aligned members of the community, we propose to allow still locked tokens from the various airdrops to be used for voting. We also propose allowing the vested, but unclaimed tokens from FIDU staking to be used. Lastly, we propose increasing the quorum by 2X to account for the increase in eligible GFI.

Motivation

Currently there is a fairly low circulating supply of GFI. A lot was purposefully designed to be locked up and released over the course of 1-2 years, especially for all the largest holders of GFI. That GFI is currently ineligible for voting, which means the voices of the community’s biggest and earliest supporters is not being heard. It would be a relatively simple change to the Snapshot voting strategy to allow this, and the benefits seem clear.

Specification and Requirements

This change would happen on the Snapshot voting strategy. No on-chain changes are required. The changes in the strategy would do two things.

  1. Use the CommunityRewards NFT contract, and look up the totalGranted - totalClaimed to arrive at a “total granted but not claimed” amount. → It’s ok to use the “granted but not claimed” amount because these rewards are always going to be the users, they simply haven’t unlocked yet.
  2. Use the StakingRewards contract for FIDU, and look at the claimableRewards for a given user’s position. → We use claimable rewards here because we should not count GFI that is not yet vested.
  3. Increase the quorum on Snapshot by 2X to 50k. → There’s roughly 10M circulating GFI, according to CoinGecko. There’s about 15M still in the Community Rewards contract. So that’s about 2.5X increase in supply that could vote. I think choosing a clean 2X increase in the quorum seems like a reasonable place to start. This is very easy to adjust later.

Note, both of these would be added together with whatever GFI is in the user’s wallet, to arrive at their total GFI voting power.

Benefits

  • It lets the people who contributed the most early on, and have the most at stake with Goldfinch to have a voice in Governance

Downside

  • Potentially you could argue it increases the ability of large holders to influence votes. But our usage of quadratic voting severely constrains this. And of course, large holders are generally the earliest and most aligned supporters.

Notes

  • Just to be clear, this is not affecting the actual unlock schedules in any way. There are no on-chain changes with this. It will merely allow the snapshot strategy to take into account still locked GFI.

Voting

“Yes” - Allow locked but unvested GFI from airdrops to be eligible for voting, and also allow claimable Fidu rewards to be eligible for voting

“No” - Do nothing

Resources

4 Likes
2

This is a good suggestion, but I think users don’t fully understand who exactly will be able to vote.
My vote is YES, but I think it’s worth Increase the quorum on Snapshot to 100k

3

This proposal will allow more community members to participate in governance procces. It will also motivate them to take an active part in the development of the project.
I give my YES

1 Like
4

I definitely support this proposal as it is the best way to achieve the goal at this stage.

5

When I make an airdrop claim, tax will be incurred in Japan. So the claim has not been made. If we can vote while locked, we can prevent GFI from being sold. My vote is YES.

2 Likes
6

Good point! Agree with the proposal

1 Like
7

Good suggestion! I’ll give my YES too

8

No brainer here to vote “Yes” for empowering community voice. Also, assuming that Seed and Series A investors are not included, I think 2X quorum i.e 50k is a good threshold to start.

9

It is normal in DeFi to allow voting with locked tokens. I’m in support of this proposal !!

10

My vote is big YES! It’s a good decision :+1:

11

My vote is YES! Good suggestion.

12

Yes

But I think it would be interesting to see a breakout (at a high level) of the votes going forward between unvested/unclaimed GFI and vested/claimed GFI.

13

I agree with the suggestions my vote is “YES”

…but the TERMS LIST is needed and must be in EACH text of each proposal!

It may be realized easily as on Wikipedia - 1645951412419 (376 kb) закачан 27 февраля 2022 г. Joxi the term explanation shows when the mouse over the link. But it needed to start and create and add the terms in each iteration.

It’s very-very necessary for every proposal (for newcomers for example) and it’s necessary to create the term list for those who want to give the suggestion (optional, but needed if you want to understand you).

14

Full support to this proposal, so YES

1 Like
15

GIP-004 is soft approved by council.

1 Like