This is excellent information @MorrisMustang ! Thanks for digging into this! So basically, this would bring us to a representative democracy, not a liquid democracy correct? As I understand, this feature currently allows us to allocate our votes to another person, but that person can't shill your votes to others. That is great. I think this still presents the issue, that people can "bribe" others in essence, maybe even make them feel like they need to "pay for protection" by giving their VP to a random delegate. I think we need safeguards in place before we venture in this territory, something this proposal doesn't take into account. I believe it makes sense to vote against this for now, establish a way for the districts to vote freely on matters so their input can be quantified and taken into account for issues like this which impact everyone, all the districts, and the future creators coming to DCL. Such an impactful change shouldn't be made without the consideration and votes of the districts for one. Also, we would need to first identify and mitigate risks that come with "Hoarding Votes", of which Quadratic Voting seems to be an excellent topic to explore to see whether it will level the playing field for smaller players with less funding but just as much to offer (and active participation), can bring their thoughts and opinions and be counted in these major decisions.

I spoke with the Snapshot developers between last night and this morning. They clarified that vote delegation does not cascade in the snapshot protocol, which means there is only a single level of delegation that can occur. In the immediate, this addresses the security concerns between the cold storage and hot wallets. Im not versed enough on the district leaders' multisig gas fee issue with regards to voting to know if delegation immediately addresses it, but that seemed to be the sentiment last night at the Town Hall discussion. Here is how delegation works between three parties in the snapshot protocol: If Player A delegates to Player B, Player B can vote using Player B + Player A's voting power. Should Player A choose to vote on the same proposal as Player B, the delegated votes from Player A to Player B are nullified. Player A and Player B's votes will be logged separately on the same proposal with their respective VP. If Player B delegates to Player C, after having received Player A's VP, Player C can vote with Player C + Player B's VP, but that does not include the delegated votes from Player A to Player B. Players A, B, and C can all still vote with their respective VP should they choose to be active on a proposal, or their trusted delegate can act on their behalf. You do not need to rescind your VP delegation in order to exercise a direct vote and voting power does not cascade. There is a gas fee of ~$2.50-$5.00 to add or remove delegation between two address as this happens on chain and not on IPFS where the votes themselves are stored. When choosing a delegate, a Player would be accessing the delegate's trustworthiness in addition to committing funds, albeit a small amount, in order to make the delegation possible.

A general understanding of quadratic voting. https://youtu.be/hEHv-dE4xl8 I personally feel such a system is mandatory to any DAO since all ecosystems are bound to have whales. What matters is how the vote weightage is distributed fairly benefiting the ecosystem as a whole.

Implemented in Illuvium https://medium.com/illuvium/10-illuvinati-council-election-d8a8f2755d00 https://medium.com/illuvium/7-establishing-the-illuvinati-governance-council-2cb0442ddaed

Voting for Public platforms/goods : Quadratic Voting/Funding https://vitalik.ca/general/2019/12/07/quadratic.html

agree with you zoo. This if really needed, should be revisited in the future.

I also disagree with this poll. Allowing voting power to be transferred means the possibility of many voting power to be transferred to one entity. This is dangerous. As such, i absolutely disagree with it. This poll proves the point being as one vote outweighs the majority of players. My proposition itself was downvoted by a whale...

Concentration of voting power seems to be already an issue. Delegating votes will just make it worse. Also delegating is not really needed at all. Investors can vote at any time if they are interested.

And what is stopping a corporation from paying land owners and mana holders for their VP to acquire influence, and then ultimately changing the direction of Decentraland as a whole? I believe it is too risky to allow this right now and we have all put so much work in to not exercise caution...

It depends how the delegation is implemented, if we use the already existing snapshot delegation then yes it requires the lands to be on an EOA wallet to delegate it, but you can still put it on cold storage where it will be safer than hot wallet having to be used to vote on each individual vote

Delegating a vote to someone else (to handle it however they wish) is quite different from delegating a decided vote to someone else to submit. If the issue is about wanting to consolidate one's votes across different wallets under the same name, then I am open to a system to allow one to delegate a decided vote. (which may take an extra step, but this wouldn't necessarily impact other greater issues) In response to HPrivakos' comment, I think what's being suggested here is a false dichotomy. By no means would blocking delegation force districts to move the lands to a hot wallet. I am curious to know if the owner of the district that voted with 2 million VP stores the district land in a hot wallet. Would someone be able to investigate or ask about this?

> Voting no may put the districts at risk. Districts will want to vote in any cases, be allowing them to delegate their votes they will be able to keep the lands and estates in a safe storage while blocking delegation will force districts to move the lands/estates to a hot wallet (either browser or hardware wallet) which put the lands at risk. Isn't this misleading information? Wouldn't they also have to sign the initial delegation request to prove that they can delegate in the first place? Basically exactly the same process as if they voted. Or am I missing something?

Voting no may put the districts at risk. Districts will want to vote in any cases, be allowing them to delegate their votes they will be able to keep the lands and estates in a safe storage while blocking delegation will force districts to move the lands/estates to a hot wallet (either browser or hardware wallet) which put the lands at risk.

By implementing delegation, it effectively enables votes to be traded, potentially with financial incentives. Comparing to real life, I am not aware of any mechanisms that allow vote delegation in elections anywhere. Which makes sense, since the consequences of elections would have a direct impact of real lives of each person, so each person needs to be directly responsible to vote for their own interest (even if they sell their vote, "terrible" voting decisions will weigh on their conscience since they directly performed the action, so non-delegation of votes add an extra barrier to voting abuse). Passive citizens that delegate votes to other entities could result in decisions that go against the best interests of active citizens, who spend a lot of time in the Decentraland world and would arguably be impacted directly (not as serious as in real life, but community - the most important aspect for a thriving Decentraland - would potentially be irreparably damaged.)

Can please someone clarify if this is a binding poll, or if this is just a gauge of community opinion? Proxy voting is a complex topic with far reaching consequences if implemented. Like others have stated here I too have a very strong desire to discuss the topic in much more detail before it comes to an actual vote. So many questions that immediately come to my mind: * How is delegation implemented in snapshot specifically? Can a delegation be delegated further? Can I remove my delegation during an active poll where my vote was abused? * What are known typical attacks / risks with and without proxy voting? * Are there some types of polls where proxy voting is naturally suited better / worse? (If you look up liquid democracy you see many examples of systems that implement proxy voting only for certain polls and forbid it for others) * ...and surely many more if we get deeper into the discussion. Also don't agree with some of what @MorrisMustang said: > With the current set up of the DAO, anyone who holds land or mana should be able to vote. Seems like you are discounting their vote because they dont play enough, or have enough time to follow every proposal in the DAO. Does their vote not count? Everyone that holds land or mana is able to vote. If they are invested and are that passive they rely on a delegate anyways. This does not automatically have to be a delegated vote, but could be just an observer that informs them of any proposals where they should vote on to protect their interests. If they can't be bothered to go vote on their own it's better that they don't vote IMO. > With regards to hardware wallets, the folks Ive spoken want to be able to vote under their avatars name, not under a secondary address. Can you make them join the discussion and lay out why that is important to them? Or can you try to lay it out in a bit more detail? > Anybody who owns Decentraland assets gets a vote, and its an equal vote and they should be allowed to do with it as they please. That is democracy. Again - they do have their vote! It's just that the rules of the democratic system you are in define how they get to cast their vote. And this is what the discussion is about. Nobody is stripping their votes.

The proposal sounded logical to me at first but on further thoughts I think it is indeed problematic, to echo the thoughts of fellow community members. The good thing is that I felt compelled enough to create an account and voice out for the first time in here. I think the intentions of the proposal initially stems from convenience / preference, but it really opens up a can of worms with the centralization / vote buying aspect. The trade-off is too significant, in my view, and I wouldn't trade the ethos of decentralization (a core aspect of the platform) merely for convenience / preference. If the inactive stakeholders care enough to vote, they will vote. I didn't care enough before, but this proposal got me fired up to vote and comment. At the end of the day, I'm heartened that we are having this conversation rationally and openly.

I have to agree that this proposal is problematic. It is already difficult enough for normal Decentraland citizens to exert power in the DAO, and the opportunity to allow further concentration of power through vote delegation could derail all attempts to achieve any semblance of tangible decentralization. Now from my understanding this is just a poll, correct? So it is a non-binding gauge of community opinion, which in itself, does not necessitate or compel any further action, is that correct? What would the next step be for implementing such a decision should the poll be in favor of this proposal? Does anyone have any examples in other DAOs were there was voting power delegation, and can point to some of the positive or negative impacts of such a decision?

Wow. For me, this is an absolute and definite NO this early on in the DAO existence. The fact that this is brought up early on is an aggressive attempt to undermine the whole purpose of this system. This should be brought back when there are more people actively participating in the DAO. The current YES votes in the currently active proposal are showing exactly where this is taking us. 1 or few entities have so much leverage that the community cannot keep up. I am afraid this proposal will seriously damage the community over the coming days and show us the weakness of the system. Remember, the people commenting and engaging here are the most active members and represent the real community and without these people the investors will just be holding a jpeg in their passive wallet.

Groups of whales Vs individual players seems counterintuitive if the focus is decentralization. Even if this passes, I feel like it goes against the whole idea of this great metaverse.

Exactly. If they care enough, they have the ability to log in and vote. Delegating votes to others can become a popularity contest and lead to unwanted results. This delegation topic needs to be discussed further.

> "Seems like you are discounting their vote because they dont play enough, or have enough time to follow every proposal in the DAO. Does their vote not count? Is a vote different if it comes from someone who isnt active but has an opinion enough to vote themselves on a proposal?" Absolutely no, they can come and vote and weight the same as others, if they care enough.

Hi Pablo, Inactive investors chose to back the Decentraland horse. This may or may not be a product of active players drawing these folks in, like I do with my friends. With the current set up of the DAO, anyone who holds land or mana should be able to vote. Seems like you are discounting their vote because they dont play enough, or have enough time to follow every proposal in the DAO. Does their vote not count? Is a vote different if it comes from someone who isnt active but has an opinion enough to vote themselves on a proposal? With regards to hardware wallets, the folks Ive spoken want to be able to vote under their avatars name, not under a secondary address. Anybody who owns Decentraland assets gets a vote, and its an equal vote and they should be allowed to do with it as they please. That is democracy.

I think representative democracy is a great idea. If you don't play enough to form an opinion, your votes could get delegated to someone you trust to vote for you. If the protocol gives an individual a right to vote, then who is anyone to decide how they should vote or if they should vote. (e.g. I too would sometimes prefer that people who vote for the other guy not to vote, but then that's not a democracy). I'd want to encourage them to participate through delegation. The nice thing about this vote is it'll cement on the blockchain who is and isn't for democracy.

My first though is, inactive people to have active VP over active community members, I vote no. The voting app is compatible with hardware wallets as well. Im always open to change my mind, but this is my first opinion. I prefer to be cautious first and cast a NO.

@izoo I completely agree. Again, as this current proposal stands, I vote no. This needs to be discussed further. I can't add another reply so here is additional color: I don't really see why this should should even be a proposal? If you're creating the proposal just to show the limitations / breakpoints in the system, bravo. Rhetorical: How hard is it for someone who's "passive" to log into the DAO and vote for a proposal? Again, on the surface of this proposal, it makes no sense to lean into something so quick with potentially massive implications. Hypothetical: I get millions of VP delegated to me to use at my disposal. I create new addresses and then a new grant proposal for each address. My VP address votes yes on all of these grant proposals; they pass, and now all of those addresses receive DAO funding. I don't develop my proposals and walk away with potentially thousands of dollars across multiple addresses to make it more difficult to find my identity. The ability to influence "whales" to vote in favor of your proposal should be an actual effort: marketing, pitching, persuading and selling your proposal to them. It should not be simply a delegated VP to use willy nilly on any proposal you want. 2nd edit: Inactive investors are speculators IMO. If they are active, then they are engaged in the community and the direction of the ecosystem and will vote on proposals. If they are speculating, I don't feel they should have a say in the direction of the ecosystem.