Conviction Voting in the ENS DAO: Why One-Token-One-Vote is a Better Alternative
I am concerned that our current conviction voting mechanism may not be the best approach for the DAO. While conviction voting has its merits, I believe that there are significant drawbacks that warrant a reconsideration of our voting system. In this post, I will outline the main arguments against conviction voting in the ENS DAO, focusing on the potential issues faced by small grant participants, and propose the one-token-one-vote alternative to better serve our community.
Arguments against conviction voting in the ENS DAO:
Concentration of power: One of the primary concerns with conviction voting is the potential for some large token holders to exert disproportionate influence over the decision-making process. Since some members have magnitudes more tokens than the majority of token holders, this system may create an unfair advantage for proposals supported by these whales, leaving others with little to no chance of approval.
Unfairness for small grants participants: Conviction voting allows whales to vote for an unlimited number of proposals with their full voting power, potentially ignoring smaller proposals that might not have the backing of large token holders. This can create an uneven playing field for small grant participants who may struggle to gain traction for their proposals. This is seen with proposals on winning streaks.
Complexity and confusion: Conviction voting can be challenging to understand and implement, especially for newcomers. The complexity of the voting mechanism may deter participation, create confusion around voting outcomes, and lead to decisions that don’t fully reflect the community’s wishes.
Alternative voting mechanism for the ENS DAO:
One-token-one-vote: This straightforward voting system assigns one vote per token, ensuring that each token holder’s influence is directly proportional to their holdings. While this method does not completely address the concentration of power, it offers simplicity and transparency that could encourage broader participation. Most importantly, it prevents whales from voting on unlimited proposals with their full power, creating a more level playing field for small grant participants.
I welcome further discussion on this topic and am eager to hear the thoughts of my fellow community members. Let’s work together to create a more inclusive and equitable decision-making process for the ENS DAO that gives every proposal a fair chance.
I appreciate you reading, first time posting a fresh topic in here.