Threshold
AYE to reducing voter fatigue by:
Hoping these changes will actually translate in higher participation in OpenGov, we need more voters/tokens making collective decisions.
But not only more voters, more voters actually reading and analyzing the proposals and voting accordingly.
Regarding the idea of most of the spending going through bounties... in my opinion: AYE only if more transparency exists from all bounties (current and future).
I noticed the introduction of an additional idea to the list of this WFC: "decreasing decision time" from 14 to 3 days. This would mean people need to "secure" the decision deposit tokens prior to posting their proposal, which could deter people who do not have enough tokens. I did not see you include the possibility of crowdsourcing decision deposits discussed on the forum post. Is there a specific reason why it has not been taken into account in this WFC?
I think these are good changes overall. I am a bit worried about the max deciding decreases - I think it is too drastic and the danger there is that teams who rely on treasury funding might be delayed for months, perhaps putting projects in danger.
This proposal risks cutting off participation and builder access to capital at a time when ecosystem activity is already low, when our priority should be driving demand and onboarding more builders.
Two issues stick out that I'd like to highlight:
Also, the idea of 'voting fatigue' doesn’t really resonate with me. Anyone can always choose not to vote. Nobody is forcing someone to vote on every single proposal. What feels more relevant is the burnout from seeing the same organizations receive significant funding repeatedly while others struggle for support. From my perspective this proposal doesn’t address that imbalance and may even worsen it.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.
The Wish For Change track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received two aye and two nay votes from eight available members, with two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
The voters expressed mixed opinions on the proposed OpenGov adjustments. Some initially supported the changes, highlighting that higher deposits and shortened decision periods could reduce spam and voter fatigue while improving proposal quality. Others grew concerned that limiting the maximum active proposals too drastically might delay decision making and clog the system. Detailed criticisms questioned the rigidity of static requirements versus a more dynamic model and doubted the wisdom of implementing sweeping changes all at once without prior testing on a smaller scale. A few abstained, reflecting uncertainty over turnout and potential delays despite recognizing the proposal’s intention to streamline governance.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate
📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate
first