GIP: 19
Title: New GoodDAO Voting System
Author: Jahanna Patterson
Status: Stage III
Track: Meta/Proclamation
Created: 2023-11-19
New GoodDAO Voting System
GoodDollar is a powerful project with an ambitious aspiration: to ensure that, in every corner of the world, each person has the possibility of receiving their universal basic income without any political, social, cultural, educational and, of course, economic factors being an impediment to achieve this end. GoodDollar is a project conceived for the community and it seeks to be directed by its own community through its decentralized governance system, the GoodDAO. The project has managed to remain stable from day 1 and has gone through several stages to reach the position it has now. Like any project, it had and will always have to mutate and evolve to satisfy the needs of the market and those of its own community; always maintaining its philosophy and values as a guiding principle.
The layout of the current GoodDAO system is supported using GOOD as a governance token, which has no commercial value, is non-transferable and can only be acquired by claiming the UBI or by staking. Each unit of this token is equivalent to 1 vote and there are no limitations on the number of tokens each individual can own.
This proposal seeks not only to demonstrate that the modification of the current voting system is imperative, but it also seeks to solve it from an approach in which the parties (claimers and supporters) are satisfied and correctly represented. Solution that can be carried out without additional costs, developments, applications or platforms, and aims to use the premises of GoodDollar (the project) as a flag and replicate them in the GoodDAO in the most democratic way possible through the system explained below:
Forked Universe Voting System
Where the total universe of GOOD token owners is divided into two sub-universes, the first being the Supporters (holders with more than 300k GOODs) and the second being the Claimers (holders with less than 300k GOODs). Of the total universe, which is equivalent to 100% of the votes for a proposal, the voting weight of the sub-universes will be distributed 22/78 respectively.
To vote on a proposal and taking into account the current channel to do so (Snapshot), it would be necessary to open two voting processes per proposal, one for each sub-universe, since this platform we currently use to cast our votes has mechanisms to segment voters by their voting power, among other features.
In both processes, the options to vote will be displayed normally as has been done until now. Each process, destined for a sub-universe, will totalize its votes based on 100% internally. The percentage of each option to vote will be divided by the percentage of voting weight of each sub-universe and then, the votes of both processes will be added to obtain the real results of the proposal vote.
The mathematical operation would be the following:
Result = (Percentage of the Supporters’ Votes * Percentage of Vote Weight) + (Percentage of the Claimers’ Votes * Percentage of Vote Weight)
In a practical example, to approve a proposal, Supporters voted 68% in favor, 22% against and 10% null; while the Claimers voted 30% in favor, 50% against and 20% null:
In favor = (680.22) + (300.78) 
14.96 + 23.4 38.36
Against = (220.22) + (500.78) 4.84 + 39 43.84
Null = (100.22) + (200.78) 2.2 + 15.6 17.8
In this case, the proposal would be rejected with 43.84% of the votes, 38.36% in favor and 17.8% null.
These percentages of voting weight are a necessary measure to ensure the Claimers have real mathematical possibilities of reversing the most extreme voting scenario: the adverse consensus (100% of the votes of the Supporters), where at least 65% would be needed to turn the result around.
In favor = (1000.22) + (350.78) 22 + 27.3 49.3
Against = (00.22) + (650.78) 0 + 39 50.7
Null = (00.22) + (00.78) 0 + 0 0
This is a scenario with a high probability of being fulfilled if we consider that, of 17 voting processes, in 14 of them, all voters with more than 400k GOODs casted their votes in consensus for the same option.
To increase the fairness of the process, 4 additional conditions must be met:
1- A minimum voting threshold must be established for both sub-universes of voters and thus prevent decisions from being made by a few. To do this, the number of votes that would be classified in each sub-universe must be determined to establish a double quorum.
2- The voting period must be long enough to maximize participation.
3- The vote must be secret until the processes close, to avoid trend voting and as an attempt to reduce the alteration of the results due to Sybil.
4- The proposals must be rewritten in a simplified and well-explained terminology for it to be understood by as many people as possible. Also, the pros and cons debated in Discourse must be briefly present to guarantee, as far as possible, that each voter has enough elements to cast their votes having evaluated the proposal thoroughly.
Bonus: We must work towards integrating, as near as possible, the process of discussing and voting on proposals directly in the wallet to simplify the steps and make it much more accessible and practical for the widest spectrum of community members possible.
With this new system, an increase in participation in GoodDao is guaranteed due to the revaluation of the Claimers’ votes, since they will be able to truly influence the decisions. All this without depreciating the value of the Supporters’ votes, because they will still be the basis of each electoral process (although their percentage of voting weight will be lower, their weight of the voting tendency will continue to be decisive for the general result), thereby achieving a governance that is increasingly closer to what defines a DAO. For all, with justice and equity.
