Thoughts about allowing polygon ENS (pos ENS) to vote on snapshot?

💬 General Discussion
#1

Ever since uniswap V3 deployed on polygon, many users bridged various tokens to take advantage of the new market and low fees.

This includes pos ENS, a wrapped version of ENS to use on the polygon sidechain.

Users of the polygon network are able to obtain ENS tokens from polygon uniswap. However, in order to actually use them, users would have to bridge them back to the ethereum network, which would incur high gas costs.

Allowing pos ENS to vote on snapshot would be very nice. Other DAOs like AAVE, MANA, and BAL already allow the polygon variant of their token to vote.

The lower barrier to entry would encourage more people to participate in governance, as not everyone is willing to sacrifice a moderate amount of ethereum for gas.

3 Likes
#2

I receive support requests from people who are impacted by high gas costs in a very real way every day, so I’m very much in favour of this unless there are any particular hurdles in implementing it.

Lowering the cost barrier of entry to governance and voting is a great idea :+1:

4 Likes
#3

This is the exact purpose Polygon is aiming to accomplish, so I’m all for it. Layer 2s are how Ethereum will scale this year.

2 Likes
#4

My worry with any proposal like this is that it creates a divergence between those eligible to vote in Snapshot and those eligible to vote onchain - meaning that Snapshot may no longer be an accurate representation of peoples’ onchain voting intentions.

#5

Interesting point. I wonder how difficult it would be for Snapshot to incorporate L2s?

#6

I think we would want as many token holders as possible to participate in voting and I do think gas fees are limiting participation. I don’t have a solution but I do hope this gets solved eventually. As a side note, I wonder if the DAO will want some tokens in the treasury to be on an L2 so that we can send small dollar compensation to contributors without it being eaten up by gas fees.

#7

I don’t support this for fear of another possible divergence similar to what nick.eth mentioned. Those who have kept their ENS on ethereum have forgone the benefits of having it on cheaper polygon in your own words. I bet those people wouldn’t like it that polygon users now have equal voting rights on Snapshot (unless you find a way to compensate them for their lost opportunity costs), while you still have that one pretty much unsolvable fundamental issue of on-chain/Tally votes diverging from Snapshot votes as nick said. If someone bridges over to polygon to exploit the markets there, they have to live with the fact that they are now effectively using ENS as a currency and not as a DAO token. You cannot have the best of both worlds. I am in for lowering the entry cost block-wide (new term!) and including as many legitimate token holders ideologically but this is not the right way forward. Plus, I do believe that moderately high fees are a reasonable entry barrier.

1 Like
#8

Since there is a concern over eligibility in off- vs on-chain votes, how have those DAO’s solved this?

1 Like
#9

I see the general consensus around pos ENS is that it would create a divergence between snapshot votes and actual on-chain votes

This is the case with other DAOs that chose to do this, but as decisions on their proposals directly affect the other networks, it makes sense to take in their opinion for an accurate consensus across all chains.

ENS and its domains (for now) are only on ethereum, and as all of it’s users use ethereum, it does make more sense for voting to be restricted to mainnet.

(pings)
@nick.eth @Cthulu.eth @inplco @natebeck @daylon.eth

#10

It’s not about snapshot’s capability. It’s more about pEOS unable to vote on chain on L1.

1 Like
#11

Yea I agree with @nick.eth, would be weird to have proposals potentially diverge in execution. It might make more sense down the line if something like Snapshot X allows for cross-chain storage proofs for voting on L1 on-chain proposals.

Also, I know it’s pedantic, but I think in a context like this, we should be more specific and not call Polygon PoS an L2 (since it’s not, it’s a side-chain). Reason being that in the context of voting, the security differences potentially do matter and should be taken into account.

1 Like