FIP57: Time to Move the DAO Forward with Rage Quit

[caps]

@zon

I think V2 could have a chance to entice more actors into playing the game and push users to floor but like I had mentioned in the Locking pt2 discussion I’m not sure it drives additional value to the floor token itself - which is my primary concern as a floor token holder. There is always the ability to wait and see.

I agree, and we have a whitepaper to drop on Floor’s next product once the time is right, but it can’t be shared right now due to the risk of being front run. If required, a handful of people who have helped feedback on the draft could attest to it having the potential to innovate the NFT-Fi space significantly and drive ETH fees and yield to the Floor Wars.

@zon

I think one of the strongest arguments Lux has made is that a RQ before V2 is the best way to set up V2 for success. If a RQ were to not happen, I believe status quo would simply continue whereby every gauge vote results in a significant share being for FLOOR buybacks - this clearly nullifies a core benefit of v2 which is to have it be enticing enough of an opportunity for NFT collections / fans to come allocate 10e a week to sweeps.

I think it would be reasonable to switch off the gauge once FLOOR is meaningfully above treasury and turned on again if it were to drop.

While I’d love to think that Lux is writing his proposal with the best intentions for Floor’s future in mind, I find it very difficult to see where such an alignment is coming from given the glaring conflict of interests.

@Lux on the topic of the rage quit mechanism. I think this calculation below is the maximally objective. The amounts and values below are just for illustration, but put simply this would give everyone a pro-rata claim on all tokens in the treasury (all NFTs would be fractionalized to enable this).

This would avoid any need for selling/slippage issues and the giant complexities and differences of opinion that would come with it.

You can copy the sheet and play with the data: RQ Formula - Google Sheets

[javery]

@Lux

• Snapshot Vote:
• Do you approve of a FloorDAO rage quit before V2 is live? (Voting yes doesn’t mean you’ll Rage Quit, just that you approve of the concept. You’ll need to whitelist in a separate vote if you wish to Rage Quit).
  • Yes/No/Abstain/Amend
• Vote shall pass if yes receives the highest % of votes.
• In the event that no/amend wins, we’ll go back to a 7-day discussion period to fix the proposal and take into consideration community changes.

I covered some feedback in Discord but wanted to add this bit specifically here. If yes receives more than 50% of the votes it proceeds to the next stages, if no receives more than 50% then it does not proceed. There should be a >50% majority…

[Lux]

I don’t think you can lump Abstain into the no camp as it isn’t a vote for yes or no.

Amend also doesn’t mean yes or no. I think in a vote like this plurality is fine as all vote options are differentiated enough.

[Lux]

This FIP has been put on pause to explore alternative rage quit options.

[javery]

@Lux

I don’t think you can lump Abstain into the no camp as it isn’t a vote for yes or no.

For future reference, Abstsain doesn’t get counted for any vote, it is there to achieve quorum without putting a vote towards a specific option.

So if there is 51 votes for yes, 49 votes for no, and 200 votes for abstain then yes would win 51%/49%.

@Lux

Amend also doesn’t mean yes or no. I think in a vote like this plurality is fine as all vote options are differentiated enough.

That’s right, amend would mean to amend the options. The way your proposal was written had if No received an 80% vote it would return to discussion to go up again which isn’t the right next steps in this case

Sounds like another discussion is happening in the mean time.