#4 is what I am suggesting. The more MANA you have when you first log in, the longer you have to wait before you can use the VP (new accounts with 0 VP don't have to wait at all). It won't be that easy since the user can simply transfer the MANA out to another account, but if it's a big exchange, that won't be too much of a risk. All of the other suggestions feel unfair in some way or other.

There are a lot of ways to prevent things like this, but it is not the case that a lot of them are good. When it comes to smart-contracts, we want to be as _surgical as possible_ in any change that is made.

This proposal was done to start the discussion around how we can prevent corruption. So let's start a list: 1. Percentage based VP. (Penalizing those that hold all their VP in one asset) 2. Penalizing those that don't vote often. 3. Penalizing those that have recently acquired VP. 4. Penalizing those that have never logged in? (I'm sure a whale will log in if they have to........... Why not add a small barrier... :man_shrugging:) 5. help :laughing:

https://youtu.be/8oh6Uw_ZH2A This was the TLDR on that link in the OP.. There are a lot of good ways that should be implemented to prevent things like this.

Nevertheless... the VP in these wallets is indeed quite impressive: [#Ed1B](https://decentraland.org/governance/profile/?address=0x67c231cF2B0E9518aBa46bDea6b10E0D0C5fEd1B), [#aceC](https://decentraland.org/governance/profile/?address=0xF977814e90dA44bFA03b6295A0616a897441aceC). However, note that these seem to have never been used to log into DCL. Perhaps the answer is to mandate a moratorium on any VP logging in for the first time ? The more MANA there is on that account, the longer the period ? One could still create a new account and then send MANA to it, of course. But this way, the MANA in locked exchange wallets should still be truly kept out of the way 🤔

You don't need 1.6b to counter-balance 250m. And someone borrowing from Binance is different than Binance acting directly.

They did it with steem before if you read the OP.. They just paused withdrawals for 1 week while they used the VP to vote. It would be hard to get the other 1.6b to vote against them when I personally struggle to get 500k VP on my proposals..

That's a good point, nevertheless the math in the example is still flawed for the WEAR part: if 0 vote yes and 0 vote no, then 0 VP will go towards the vote, so there really can't be a 0.5% there.

Impressive numbers, for sure ! But.. 1) The majority of this 250m is locked in for operations of the exchange, and unavailable for loaning. 2) 250m is not that much out of 1.8b anyway...

It depends how much money you have.. If I was a billionaire and I asked binance for a MANA loan then they would do it.. [Currently binance own at least 250m VP..](https://etherscan.io/token/0x0f5d2fb29fb7d3cfee444a200298f468908cc942#balances) So a truely decentralized governance never makes sense until we implement the percentage based VP

Used to be 1.3B circulating supply.. but now it's 1.8b https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/decentraland

That's how it currently works anyway :sweat_smile: If 1 person votes with enough VP then it passes.. Normally that 1 person has a majority of their holdings in 1 asset. I personally hold a lot of LAND but pretty much no MANA.. I do have some wearables and some NAMEs though.. If you look at some typical user profiles. (nice variety of assets)   Then you have people like this: (never logged into the game to create a profile) (Often delegates VP.) (Can pretty much pass any proposal)  If these 3 members votes for something.. The whale wins every time in the current format.. PERCENTAGE BASED EXAMPLE: BET and IAMDECENTRALAND vote NO WHALE votes YES Then the NO's would win with a 52% majority. CURRENT SYSTEM: BET and IAMDECENTRALAND vote NO WHALE votes YES Then the YES's would win with a 99% majority. Because the WHALE can only ever vote with up to 49% in the percentage based system. It makes it more fair for everyone. So the WHALE needs to get smart and buy some WEARABLES :laughing:

[quote="dao, post:1, topic:3336"] Currently the circulating MANA supply is 1.3b VP [/quote] First of all, it is rather important to have click-through references to validate any such kind of number listed in a Poll or Proposal. [quote="BET, post:15, topic:3336, full:true"] You can borrow MANA OTC [/quote] But even assuming that 1.3b VP was close to correct, just how much of that do you expect to be able to borrow OTC ? I highly doubt it's anywhere _near_ 1.3b VP :astonished: [quote="BET, post:15, topic:3336, full:true"] or with limit orders… [/quote] What exactly do you mean ? Are you talking about limit orders to buy on an exchange ? Those don't give MANA until the _orders are filled_, right ?

The idea is fair ! But just because the Poll has passed, it does not mean the math in the example stops being wrong. If 20 LAND vote `yes`, and 80 LAND vote `no`, that means 89.9k LAND vote `blank`. A weight of 100 cannot be made to speak for a weight of 89.9k ;)

You can borrow MANA OTC or with limit orders.. You only need to borrow for a few blocks..

You can't change the proposal and then tell me my math is wrong.. :sweat_smile: This proposal is to make a fairer voting system.. So that no matter how much MANA you have you can only win up to 49% of the yes votes.. So you would also need support from LAND/NAMEs/WEARs/OTHERs if you really wanted to pass something.. This helps with things like last minute voters and whales..

[quote="BET, post:10, topic:3336"] With the current system anyone can buy a large amount of MANA. Post a proposal. Sell their MANA. Pass a proposal. [/quote] This is actually _much much_ harder than people make it. You can only buy a certain amount of MANA at the current price; as soon as you buy up the supply at that price, the only supply remaining is _at a higher price_. And when you buy up the supply at _that_ price... the only supply remaining is _at an even higher_ price. So in the end, when you've reached the amount of MANA that actually enables you to swing votes... you'll have spent _much more_ than you will originally have estimated. And... on top of that... who's going to want to buy once you want to sell after having swung the vote ?

Do not argue with _the math is wrong_, because when that is the case, you can be _unequivocally_ proven wrong. If 0 WEAR vote, the impact on the end-result is 0%. Not 50% * 1% ! 1 LAND out of 90k is _not_ going to result in a weight of 49% in the end-total. Sorry !

IMO it should of been implemented 3 years ago :laughing:

That was an example of how a vote would work.. LAND always has 49% of a vote.. So if only 1 LAND voted "yes" for something then that would result in 49% of yes votes.. This is to avoid corrupt voting. With the current system anyone can buy a large amount of MANA. Post a proposal. Sell their MANA. Pass a proposal.

It's an interesting idea, but should probably be revoted on, as this is 3 years old. My two cents would be to actually allocate a _much smaller_ percentage to MANA, to counter-counter-incentivize the actual _spending_ of the MANA into the economy.

The math is wrong. If there is a supply of 90k LAND, and only 80 LAND vote NO, that just _cannot_ add up to a weight of 39.2% for NO in the vote. I suppose that's just a technicality though, the idea is still the same when the math is fixed.

So I guess it's about time we implemented this proposal.. Any input before I promote to draft?

I mentioned some things in the discord. There are times when votes might discriminate against a specific group of VP holders. So for example: Reducing names VP to 25 MANA. Was popular among LAND and MANA holders with almost 80% voting yes. but was highly voted against by NAME owners with around 95% voting no. So if there is a vote that singles out a specific group then the percentages should be different. For example on a name vote: |MANA|24.5%| | --- | --- | |LAND|24.5%| |NAMES|50%| |WEARABLES|1%|

I see your point here Pablo. It's a really good point. It really is. In fact, I would like to see that happen because it would give me more power at the DAO. But the way I see it. Mana is important because it is what funds the DAO. We can be certain that Mana Holders will know that the value of their Mana is dependent on the strength of the DAO. As long as the DAO looks strong, so too will Mana. They will fight strongly for the original vision of this project, because that shows a strong DAO. It's why I got involved with this project in the first place. If we want to see Metaverse happen, we're going to have to give MANA some power. This is the reason I joined this project. Yes without the land owners, this place wouldn't exist in the first place - but without the Mana Holders, the DAO wouldn't have the purchasing power it currently does. The More Mana that is held, the more powerful the DAO becomes. I would also like to see more Land owners actually exercise their rights here at the DAO. We as land owners still have a strong say in what happens. The less we are lackadaisical about this the more power we have - I think this makes collaboration important to everybody. MANA holders, LAND owners, and the players who have NAMES and WEARABLES. Everyone is involved in the ways they need to be. This is how I see it.