Governance Staking rewards based on governance activity

according to last 2 votes we have only 50-60 people who voted, it’s ~13% from total governance stakers. I’m thinking to make rewards depends on how often particular address was active during recent votes.

For example if somebody participated in all 5 recent voting he has 5/5 = 100% staking rewards. If only 2 => 2/5 => 40% staking rewards and etc. If stakers aren’t voting they have only 5-10% for passive staking.

Those who’re actively participating will have more allocations (passive share will be distributed across active participants).

Reason: more motivation to be active/engaged.

7 Likes

Good idea, even if I haven’t participated in all votings I agree with the point.

Cardano Miners have something like that, little reward if you participating in voting. Working good, will vote for add.

:ok_hand:
I like it, one more reason to vote!

great incentive to vote, base rewards still very solid

There are also some people who don’t know anything about the project, but bought only because their trusted friends bought.

Some of them think that it’s a waste of time being active. Some of them can’t speak English.

If it is really necessary them to be active, staking reward adjustment is a good idea. But is it really necessary that some people to be active, who don’t know what the project is created for?

yes I think so, more active more reward. It’s very reasonable

1 Like

I have nothing against that, but can you really expect everyone involved to vote every time? Is it fair to take away their percentage of staking? I suppose if they don’t keep up, it’s the active votes that make the decisions, so maybe that is fair. If you’re not involved, you might not reap the same benefits because you’re not making decisions, which is what your governance GTON is all about afterall.

I think the principle should be to reward stakers who vote, not punish stakers who dont.

Only 5-10% for nonvoting stakers is too low. Lets not disincentivize locking gton in staking by making it so drastically unattractive.

1 Like

I agree that voters should be rewarded rather than non-voters punished, but 5-10% is not really a punishment.
Thats still a fair APY in my opinion, also considering its risk free.
With more resources and educatement on voting there is no hurdle for getting more rewards by doing that.

yes, but you are disregarding human nature lol, when they see others got 100%, while they got 5-10%, people will get quite resentful. And they will be a great majority.

If it has to be done, then maybe frame it differently. Reduce base reward to X (id say 50% of intended for full voters ,instead of 5-10%) and provide ‘Boost’ to voters instead (1.5x, 2x etc).
This way it would feel like non stakers got the normal reward, while voters were rewarded.

1 Like

Well, the goal is to create an incentive for taking part in voting. The reward for that should be a bit more than just “nice to have”. Also everyone can participate in the votings, so theres no reason to be mad at others for getting more, as they can just vote & get higher rewards themselves.

Sure, but the incentive for staking is mostly to lock tokens away from market too. I think that shouldn’t be compromised.

I guess we should vote on this too … the few that do vote will be deciding their own rewards lol

While I agree that active members should be rewarded more there is a chance that this proposal might reduce the quality of participation.
The course of graviton will largely be defined by its DAO members. If somehow a culture is created where minimal participation (i.e. voting) results in the highest return. The majority of votes might be random because why spent time researching as it’s not required.
I understand this the be the worst possible scenario and would guess this more likely the higher the reward difference between active and passive voters.
I like the idea and definitely agree active quality contributions should be rewarded.
I simply want to point out caution should be taken and we shouldn’t get greedy on the extra reward. 10-15% seems way too little as EBs still did a lot for the project by giving it funds.

1 Like

Another idea is as follows.
I agree the participation of votes should be strongly rewarded because well researched choices and participation will result in a better project for which everybody will reap the rewards.

I am for the implementation of a quiz at every vote that evaluates the knowledge of the voter on the matter at hand. While this might be a barrier for some, it does reward the voters that are knowledgeable about the subject rather than reward people for voting.

Specifically, I’d say a minimum score is required to be allowed to vote, similarly to EB participation. This system is probably easiest to implement but still creates a minimal threshold that will likely keep people from randomly voting some option.

3 Likes

You put into words my concerns better than me. I agree with the idea of a quiz like EB for each important decision.

Quality of the votes also matters. Rewards for voting Yes but each one who votes must at least understand the nature of proposal and how will that impact the system.

1 Like

I see this as quite critical. I have been part of the Steem and Hive community, where you get rewards based on your upvotes for social media posts. The idea is great and I agree that we should try to get people engaged as much as possible. But if you need to vote in order to get rewards, you might end up losing investors and others to make dumb uneducated choices just to get more rewards.

These are two entirely different things, participating in voting and randomly liking social media posts.
Also its not a punishment for non-voters but a reward for those who vote, so I dont see investors leaving because of that.
With a quiz implemented you could prevent people from randomly voting any options.

Also its not a punishment for non-voters but a reward for those who vote, so I dont see investors leaving because of that.

Depending on the implementation rewarding the active community this might wel result in lower rewards for inactive members. For example, if allocations are fixed and the share is reweighted the increased reward for active members is at the cost of the inactive members.

I don’t think this has any effect on investors though. Investments will largely be based on how the projection of the token value is, rather than how much extra reward can be gained from staking.

The project has a huge influence from the active community members and I think these should be rewarded as such. I think the Graviton team has repeatedly shown this to be of high value through the multitude of rewards.