Would our Decentraland DAO like to add Shielded Voting to help solve voter apathy? This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)

Thank you for your reply.. I understand what you mean... and I'm prepared to accept the responsibility that comes with having large VP and a larger influence in the DAO. I almost wish someone would try with me.. because I eat bullies for breakfast. I will not compromise on the values that web3 and decentralization are built on. We should set a precedent that this type of behavior will not be tolerated, and make these occurrences known to the entire community.. so everyone knows who is shaming and harassing and trying to blackmail voters. I have not seen any of this: [quote="Sannin, post:30, topic:20105"] many, myself included have either been harassed or shamed on for our voting choices, reached out to on dms in hopes we change our votes. This behavior has happened from people I don’t think are whales or bad actors at all. [/quote] We should have MORE transparency, not less. If someone is doing this... the whole community should be made aware, and presented with evidence. *No one should be afraid to speak out or have to hide their vote.* I appreciate your POV, and I will end my commentary here. Alas, the community has decided. I just really feel we are moving backwards with this, giving away transparency and relying more on committees.

Would our Decentraland DAO like to add Shielded Voting to help solve voter apathy? This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Yes 75% 6,315,048 VP (50 votes) * No 1% 14,820 VP (9 votes) * Invalid question/options 24% 2,097,091 VP (23 votes)

Hello, I agree with this up to a point. [quote="CheddarQueso, post:29, topic:20105"] The community can also see, investigate and act on self-voting **before** a grant passes. We can see whales or bad actors playing the system, and prevent bad grants/proposals from every getting approved in the first place by voting as a community for the benefit of DCL. [/quote] Whales are not a problem, I tend to think we need them, bad actors for sure get them out of here. Reason why I voted in support of this proposal is because many, myself included have either been harassed or shamed on for our voting choices, reached out to on dms in hopes we change our votes. This behavior has happened from people I don’t think are whales or bad actors at all. I understand we should be in support of each other and that some of us like and want our friends to succeed however we must respect each others voting decisions **always**. One of the main things I see happening is, if a proposal is submitted by or voted in support from someone the community has already deemed shady, it turns to a hell of accusations without any concrete evidence almost immediately even if the proposal is against the core tenants of Web3 and DCL. I’m going to have to agree with Loaded above, in those cases I believe voters should be protected and we let the Revocations Committee do the work they were voted on for, of course with suggestions from GSS or community. (Mind you I was not in favor of creating the committees in the first place but they are here now and I believe that to be a better process where bad actors can be still be called out in a productive manner).

We cannot police voting to the point where we restrict transparency (one of the core tenants of web3 and DCL). There will always be bad actors and we have to be able to see and react in real time. The revocations committee cannot act until a grant is passed, but the community can act to prevent bad grants and shady voting **before** a grant passes. The community can also see, investigate and act on self-voting **before** a grant passes. We can see whales or bad actors playing the system, and prevent bad grants/proposals from every getting approved in the first place by voting as a community for the benefit of DCL. That is true community self-moderation and decentralization... without the need for committees.

Sorry zom. You went through something like that. You are appreciated in this community. you put in a lot of time, energy and your creativity on this platform. We should all appreciate those things. Always place yourself where you are appreciated and seen. Unfortunately not all will show signs of respect. But know there are those within the communities that do appreciate you.

There should be a level of privacy when voting just like in The real world when you vote for who you want during elections. There should be options for those who value privacy. I have had my VP for not even 48 hrs and was already questioned for something out of thin air and I haven’t even voted for anything yet. It’s easy to jump to conclusions and target people especially online. Would like to minimize harassment, and keep things less dramatic when making decisions . . . .

[quote="CheddarQueso, post:23, topic:20105"] The community should have the information they need right away to bring up any concerns so the revocations committee can act, and even bypass the committee by putting forth a proposal to revoke a grant immediately, as was recently done with [/quote] So we agree we have the Revocations Committee for it, which is my point. They cannot act unless they proposal has passed and receive recommendations from community and/or GSS. The grant has to pass to be able to put up another proposal to get it revoked immediately as well. Although I can somewhat agree with having voters viewable lets you know who is voting for who or what, I believe it is exactly what people are doing instead of voting for the proposal itself using their own judgement, they vote either along with their friends or go after the voters for voting how they vote which is not the productive way of preventing scams or anyone abusing DAO.

What are these ways to deal with harassment in the community? And what if "the community" is the one harassing you? I had an incident what wasn't pretty and went to twitter for support since the parties involved had "muted my voice"/timed me out on their discord. I ended up getting **MORE** harrassment from "the community" and continue to feel like I am treated as much less for how I decided to deal with my harassment.

Shielded voting only for those who have no delegated VP. Since the introduction of VP delegation a few years back, people started to abuse the system and hiding those votes would make things worse. But I agree that people with no delegated VP should have the option to vote in private unless they have a material VP position

The revocations committee works on recommendations from the GSS and the community. This proposal takes power away from the community to have information available in real time, and to self-police, without the help of committees, which is the end-goal of the DAO. The community should have the information they need right away to bring up any concerns so the revocations committee can act, and even bypass the committee by putting forth a proposal to revoke a grant immediately, as was recently done with https://forum.decentraland.org/t/dao-26bce8d-revoke-grant-decentraland-x-powered-by-decentraland/19437

I disagree. There’s the Revocations Committee that was formed for that purpose.

Once the voting period is over, it is too late. Ways to deal with harassment are being formulated and used right now, such as the code of ethics, hiring mods, modinator bot, the governance process to ban users who insult and harass others, etc.

Thank you for sharing your feedback CheddarQueso :) Voting will still be open and transparent.. Shielded voting doesn't hide anything, there is only a LIVE protection over all proposals until the voting period is over ensuring we get the most participators and the least influenced votes. We need more authentic voters and less sheep following sheep to get ideas through. What are some solutions you can think of since this is not a way to deal with voter apathy.. Looking forward to your ideas :clinking_glasses:

Thanks for sharing you feedback dogman :clinking_glasses: The backroom deals have been going on for a while. We can see who they are all when you look into the history of the grants proposals. This shielded voting will still show vote results at the end displaying transparency. Being able to see who is currently voting doesn't keep anyone accountable by the way, just allows people to know who to target and DM to hope they change their vote in time. Have people who voted yes to pass grants that rugged dcl community been held accountable? Shielded voting removes the urgency to rally votes because a "whale war" is going on & less attacks on those participating in the proposals. I would also like to ask you and j a question, would snapshot have added this feature by ShutterNetwork if it was only going to corrupt DAOs? I say we should experiment what our DAO would be like with this shielded voting and we can turn it off if nothing changes.

There are ways to deal with harassment in the community but this is not it. Voting should be as open and transparent as possible.

You are the only one creating irony. It's normal for you to feel this way. Best word to describe your current mental status is "Karma" :grinning:

The irony is that @esteban delegated multiple people who were harassing voters during and after my grant.

I think people should have to answer questions about why the voted for certain issues. Im not sure what the problem with votes being shown is. tbh if someone is harrasing you for not voting for them it is likely they do not deserve the vote anyway. I think showing votes is literally the only accountability we have atm .

I read this as, "corruption is rampant, we should make it easier and harder to identify and combat." I would have to disagree.

Backroom deals happen anyway. There is no transparency on this with or without shielding.

Hey alpha. Im not sure about this idea. I do see the pros of this but a major con as @jar0d stated is that corruption could be even worse. I can only imagine the backroom deals would get worse if no one can see who is voting for what. I dont believe the vast majority are afraid to vote but maybe im wrong. Thoughts?

This solution is protection for the community participating in our DAO. The corruption is very much alive, I agree with you there.. I disagree with this solution making matters worse, there will be more participation & these proposals will still be vetted as they should and the community will rally every time we see scammers trying to take money from our community without ever contributing to this community. (We know who you are and we are going to keep bringing light to your failed grants yet to be revoked.) We need to find more solutions to battle the corruption and I’m down to brainstorm. This is only a way to help more people participate and not feel alienated once they hit Yes for a grant they thought would work. We can’t keep attacking and abandoning others for simply voting the way they feel.

Doesn't this just make the corruption problem worse?

Completely agree with you, I don’t mind if people have conversations and maybe change their mind after receiving more information but if people are only going to change their decisions because of peer pressure or threats.. we need to find a way to protect the community from these patterns.. Thank you for your support! 💯