FIP 47 - Frax Proposal Process Update

Governance Proposals FIPs
1

I would like to propose some changes to the proposal and voting process that would make it easier for DAOs and other groups to participate.

Change 1:
Snapshot proposals can only be submitted by team members or someone designated by the team.

Reasoning:
In order to seemlessly integrate with the Frax voting system, there needs to be a way to automatically discern if a proposal on snapshot is a legit proposal or not, as well as check if it is correctly written, links provided, proper choices provided, etc.
(Ex. Convex creates a bot that watches for new Frax proposals. When a proposal is created, Convex creates a matching proposal for its users to vote on)

Change 2:
Increase minimum proposal vote period to 5 days.
Decrease minimum forum discussion period to 3 days.

Reasoning:
DAO or other groups need to have time to complete their own local voting process before submitting to the official Frax proposal, thus more time should be allowed.
(Longer voting periods can also help with quorum and discussions)

Concerning the forum discussion period, Sam suggested keeping an 8 day proposal window by lowering the forum discussion. The total period to discuss and vote will remain the same.

Change 3:
Change all votes from “Single Choice Voting” to “Weighted Voting”.

Reasoning:
This allows users to spread their vote weight across multiple answers. For a single user this might not affect their choice but for DAOs and other groups this gives them the option to spread their vote to better reflect the result of their own user base.

5 Likes
2

This seems like a good idea to me to bring more structure and official guidelines to the FXS tokenholder voting process. I would support this myself.

Additionally, one thing we could do to still make governance proposals decentralized is to whitelist prominent members of the community (including Convex) to start official votes in addition to the team. That way votes can start whenever any delegate wishes to transition a forum post to an official FIP snapshot.

3 Likes
3

can we please add some clarity to the quorum.

the snapshot says 6.1m votes
the old governance rules say 5% of FXS supply (around 3m votes)

but votes have passed and been acted on with much few votes.

4

I’m supportive of these changes.

Having designated people post snapshots can prevent snapshots from being posted before the discussion period has elapsed. Otherwise it is difficult to enforce.

I do not feel strongly about this but if we want to maintain current minimum discussion periods, we should lower the discussion period for meta / governance changes from 10 days to 8 days.

I view these changes as an improvement on the existing governance process that makes participation more accessible to DAOs.

5

has this ever been a problem?

if having short discussion times has been a problem, why support a proposal that makes them shorter?

7

dont think that is what’s being said. saying it protects against a possible problem where someone might post too fast etc. thus its a good thing.

1 Like
8

i have seen proposal votes get removed before for not following the governance rules, so i think that already happens.

9

each change should have its own vote.

10

That boat has sailed.

11

why ?

i feel many people would vote yes to an option if it was for only 1 change at a time and then vote no to the change they didnt like.

12

Cause it’s already done and passed.
You can make another proposal to modify one of the changes.

Splitting up is fine in general though if thats how the proposer feels would get the most changes through.

13

my bad , i missed the 25m vote right at the end.

nice to see the voting power is nicely spread out tho.

1 Like