[GIP-15] Burn Unused Good

GIP: 15
Title: Burn Unused Good
Author: Oliver Montes
Status: Stage 2
Track: Meta/Tokenomics
Created: 2023-03-12

Summary: GoodDAO is facing a situation where a large amount of Good governance tokens are held by holders who have never used their voting power, making it difficult to define a representative quorum for decision-making. This proposal aims to address this problem.

Description:

The proposal involves burning the Good tokens that have never been used in any voting. An unused Good is defined as one that has never been used in a GoodDAO vote. The burning of unused Good will take place at regular intervals to avoid the accumulation of inactive Good.

The amount of Good to be burned at each interval could be determined in different ways: the total unused Good at the time of burning could be taken, or a fraction of them could be burned, determined by a formula that takes into account the total amount of Good in circulation along with the amount of Good in use. The exact formula will be determined in a later proposal if this one is approved in its current stage.

It is expected that this proposal will incentivize Good holders to use their voting power, which in turn will improve the representativeness of decisions made by GoodDAO.

Motivation: Low participation can hinder the approval of proposals, even when they are beneficial for the community. Burning unused Good can increase participation and ensure that decisions are effectively made.

Proposal: The Gooddollar DAO will burn unused Good in the agreed manner to reach an agreement on the quorum required to approve proposals.

Justification: The lack of use of Good governance tokens by many holders makes it difficult to define a representative quorum and reduces the effectiveness of the decision-making process in GoodDAO. Burning unused Good will incentivize holders to use their voting power and increase the representativeness of decisions made by GoodDAO.

Implementation: The implementation of this proposal will require the creation of a smart contract that identifies unused Good and burns them according to the agreed formula. An audit of the contract will need to be conducted before implementation to ensure its security. In addition, clear and effective communication with the GoodDAO community will be required to inform them about the implementation of this proposal and its implications.

Conclusion: This proposal aims to address the problem of the lack of use of Good governance tokens by many holders, which reduces the legitimacy of decisions made by GoodDAO. Burning unused Good will incentivize holders to use their voting power and improve the effectiveness of the decision-making process. It is expected that this proposal will be seriously considered by the GoodDAO community and thoroughly discussed in governance forums before implementation.

The process can be fluidly considered by dividing it into 2 phases:

Phase 1

Review: A review of the draft will be conducted to ensure all requirements are met and the rights of Good holders are respected.

Discuss proposal: A debate will be opened in the Gooddollar community to discuss the pros and cons of burning unused Good.

Establish quorum: Once the debate is finished, a more representative quorum will be determined as interest in participation increases.

Voting: A vote will be opened for the Gooddollar community to decide whether to burn unused Good to reach the quorum.

Phase 2

Communication: Communication with the Gooddollar community will be required to inform them about the implementation and effects of burning unused Good.

Implementation: The implementation of this proposal will require an update to the Gooddollar smart contract to allow for the burning of unused Good.

I hope this work is well developed in form and time. It is the first time I have reached this level of work. Thank you!

8 Likes

Thanks @oliver75montes for your proposal.I agree with what you say, I think it is an important decision for the community. It resonates with me very much as it introduces one more factor of community involvement in participating in governance.
We need to think very carefully about the conditions under which these Good will be burned. It is a very sensitive issue and we have to be very careful not to detract from the voting power of the community.
Perhaps we should, in this process, think about the maximum amount of Goods in the hands of a single person. Add to the concept of basic income in economic terms, a maximum income in terms of voting power.
I think the debate is wide open and once again I thank you for putting this issue on the table.

6 Likes

I think is conveniente to start by asking what id the real (and progressive) data about the usted/unused GOOD and provide security to GOOD holders that their tokens won’t be burned if at least they used once.

4 Likes

The problem is alot of us have GOOD but the system says we dont when we try to vote

3 Likes

I think we should make gooddapp.org or wallet.gooddollar.org more easier to vote (user can vote directly there or send GOOD to a leader who can vote on behalf the user), instead of a complex burning mechanism without notification.

5 Likes

are you sure to use the wallet with GOOD available?, GOOD is different of G$

3 Likes

La cuestión del quórum es importante para la toma de decisiones, el método propuesto está interesante que sea debatido y lograr un consenso para mejorar la gobernabilidad. Espero sea tomada en cuenta y si hay que mejorar o debatir está propuesta dada por @Oliver75montes

3 Likes

Dear @goodanna,

It is a pleasure to address you to invite you to participate in a debate that is taking place on a very interesting topic. Given your knowledge and experience in this area, we believe your input would be of great value to the discussion.

We understand that your time is valuable, so we assure you that the debate will take place in a respectful and enriching environment, where the exchange of ideas and mutual learning will be encouraged.

Please consider this invitation an opportunity to share your insights and insights with an audience eager to learn and discuss ideas. If you decide to accept our invitation, we will be delighted to receive your participation and we will ensure that your contribution is recognized and valued.

We await your response and thank you in advance for your consideration.

3 Likes

Hi @oliver75montes thank you for reviving the discussion.

This is an important topic - the goal of the GoodDAO is to enable the most active members and greatest contributors (subjective, yet to be defined) to effectively govern the rules of the protocol moving forward. As such, it makes sense that those who do not participate in the basic governance (using GOOD) would somehow be accounted for in the model. It is worth noting that the 96M annual GOOD distribution resets annually, to account for new entrants / contributors over time - but this was an MVP decision :slight_smile:

However, before making modifications at a core protocol level, I would recommend a stage of research based on data, which analyzes who is using GOOD today. These are just a few suggested inputs that could help us get smarter in proposing how to evaluate this question:

  • current distribution of GOOD across wallets
  • number of active wallets on Snapshot by GOOD holdings
  • snapshot participation by region (Google analytics)
  • revisiting the basic tenants of GOOD distribution with this data in-hand

Gaining visibility into these core questions around governance and community engagement is something the Good Labs team has worked on as part of the data strategy led by @tfelix & @Meri_Fernandez

As a community, my perspective is first we should advocate for greater visibility into the governance and DAO model as is, analysis, and then proposed changes.

5 Likes

What about this? @goodanna

Implement a deflationary mechanism to burn 10% of UBI sent daily, decreasing the total supply. For example, today G$ sent 3M G$ as UBI for all claimers, then we will burn 300,000 G$ today. It could raise the price and create interest from big exchanges. All big crypto projects burn some of their coins.

2 Likes

I generally agree here, but I think we need to first increase participation.
Allow people to delegate and so on.
Maybe with a grant for someone to integrate with karma.xyz ?

3 Likes

Nice illustrative ideas

2 Likes

Nice thinking there brother! :slight_smile:

1 Like

That’s a very interesting idea. As a rule-of-thumb I always support burning tokens for the long term health of a coin.

Just needs to be discussed with caution. Like, what’s the matter with GOOD tokens not being use for voting? I don’t see why they bother you…

1 Like

The idea of burning the token good seeks the alternative of a real and legitimate quorum of those who really participate and are fully involved in the project. Having voting power and not using it in any sense makes it impossible to find a balance in the decisions of the DAO since the level of participation is low and the good possessed are numerous, consequently the legitimate quorum would be high, which would make progress difficult. of Gooddollar as a decentralized project.

1 Like

Right, but we don’t know why they aren’t voting.

Abstention isn’t all that bad. It communicates to us that the holder does not want to weigh in the matter for whatever reasons they deem valid - we just don’t know what these reasons are. A well designed survey would tell us.

However if they’re absent in EVERY voting, then I agree with you: it’s an unusual situation indicating that it might be worth investigating.

Don’t get me wrong, I do like the idea of burning tokens, but what I’m saying is that we don’t know enough at this point to determine if it is the best solution to incentivize people to utilize their voting power as to improve the representativeness of decisions made by GoodDAO.

We have to understand the root causes of their abstention before implementing a solution. It could be many reasons, and we know nothing about them.

Simply inquiring them why they’re not voting would give us the insights we need to better understand the problem and uncover it’s root causes.

Once we are clear on what’s the problem, and what causes it, then we can start designing targeted solutions that are effective and address the real needs of the community.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a simpler and less drastic solution out there than burning their tokens to get them to use their voting power.

It is true, but the possibility of abstaining has always been present in each vote, and it is a right that community members can exercise. However, if non-participation becomes widespread and persistent across all votes, it could be indicative of an underlying problem worth exploring further. It is important to understand why most members choose not to participate (including large wallets) repeatedly and if there are ways to address those reasons to encourage greater participation and engagement in community decisions.

2 Likes

Hi I gottan idea u might be interested in, Pm me let’s talk

1 Like