[IDEA] Redefine Governance

That raised my concerns if bad actors with a lot of NTRN received out of their big Atom bags (i estimate that the three requesting 10m NTRN are have this) are going to vote a proposal into their direction.

We talking about a conflict of interest, seeing the current voting power (1.8m NTRN) and the structure of NTRN holders (https://neutron.smartstake.io/stats) it is a easy task to manipulate a voting.

The allocator proposal is requesting 10.000.000 NTRN (!), whilst it is currently possible to vote for that with 1.8m NTRN + 1 NTRN to get this.

This is nothing new in cosmos. Neutron is a new blockchain, so i guess it is time to do things different.

I have a idea, to structure the governance in a fair way to avoid it conflicts of interests and make sure that no multi account user influence a voting:

  1. every account who votes has only one Voice, it dosent matter how many tokes are staked.
  2. to avoid, that users using multiple accounts to vote with only one NTRN, there must be a minimum of 100 NTRN staked
  3. to avoid that users stake 100 NTRN to vote and than unstake the 100 NTRN, send them to the next wallet, stake the 100 NTRN again and vote a second time, the 100 NTRN shall be locked until end of the voting period.

Lets estimate that 1.000 wallets (of currently 10.000 wallets) are ready to vote. In a edge case, a bad actor needs to have 1.001 wallets with 100 Neutron to vote into its own direction.
To make it even more secure, the governance tool should not accept more than 3 votes from a single IP address.

That maybe could help. Whats your though?


I disagree with below reasons:-

  1. Your suggestion is not bullet proof

How: let say I have 10000 NTRN and of the claimable NTRN(s) which are 25% of the airdropped amount can be distributed across 24 wallets and staked so technically i can still have those defined voting power which you are against.

  1. Reputed DAOs which are really functioning as DAOs generally do not have these authoritative rules.

  2. Governance participation is really low so those who wants to game the system will find another ways to game it. (even if your proposal is solid and implemented)

  3. DAOs are logical compromise between central entities & decentralized groups, so there is a core team whose job is to take care of such things and work relentlessly to build the best ecosystem for the community. If they ignore this vision and community finds out then the whole ecosystem is affected/dies. (I do not want to quote any example here)

  4. Conflicts & self-interests will always be there, what we need to do is keep our eyes open.

This is my perception of governance for any DAO.