Monitoring proposals

There is a parameter in the Conviction Voting App that allows to retire proposals from the system.

Big question: ¿How are going to decide who is in charge of that?

There should be effective ways to deal with harmful proposals. First to talk with the proposer for voluntary correction or retirement, and if that doesn’t work, be able to withdraw from the system.

There should be a dialogue around this topic.

“In every group there will be individuals who will ignore norms and act opportunistically when given a chance. There are also situations in which the potential benefits will be so high that even strongly committed in­dividuals will break norms. Consequently, the adoption of norms of be­havior will not reduce opportunistic behavior to zero. Opportunistic be­havior is a possibility that must be dealt with by all appropriators trying to solve CPR problems.” (E. Ostrom, GTC, Page 36)

We need to sort this before the Hatch. We can test proposals in next CV test deploy.


This is a great insight @Juankbell. I agree it will be great to test out proposals in the next CV test iteration.

What can the solution be for identifying and mitigating harmful proposals? Perhaps a flagging mechanism? A proposal could be flagged with a ‘potentially harmful’ flag. Even just ‘off-chain’ like in the forums. Other ideas?


Good point. I think to some extent this can be solved through the conversations on the proposal forum post. If people have concerns, they can voice them as replies to the proposal.

Since proposals are through the forum, the CV app and the forum could have an integration, wherein any updates to proposals you’re currently voting on are forwarded to the app as notifications.

If there are concerns and a voter’s mind changes, withdrawing their vote is sufficient. People naturally will want to actively stay up to date w/ the proposals they’re voting on of course. If many people agree the proposal is harmful, doesn’t withdrawal of votes effectively “retire” a proposal?


Maybe we could have a multi-sig that would assume the responsibility of this action. Also, just added the “flag proposal” option in the Gravity Typeform


I’m not sure I like the idea of a multi-sig, but at the same time can’t think of a better solution atm. How are the people in the multi-sig gonna be chosen? How many are they going to be?

Is the same multi-sig gonna be used for other “dao god-mode superpowers”? like if someone loses the keys with a lot of tec tokens in them? , also if anyone else can think of other extreme cases, I think it would be cool to have them listed, even though probably there will be cases we are not imagining yet


Good News @Tonga!! It’s looking like we can use Celeste, (basically Aragon Court using HNY to enforce our Terms for proposals) instead of a multisig for conviction voting!

Their smart contracts are set to be ready for us to review earlier than we thought! :smiley:


:sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny:

1 Like

If proposals are not contributing to the goals we might be able to auto-filter them out, using some kind of spamming-detection algorithm, NLU-kind mechanisms to flag them.

Or, but that’s maybe conflicting with other decentralized goals, ask proposal submitters to reveal SSI-like credentials to be able to evaluate their reputation.