IIP-165: Contributor Ownership Plan

[shawn16400]

@LemonadeAlpha - I think dissenting opinions are exceptionally important. Especially with regards to proposals like this with such a monumental impact. Crypto needs more voices who are willing speak their mind to avoid groupthink and I remind myself to encourage dissent, challenges, and contrarian views. This debate only make us stronger. Thank you, and keep speaking your mind.

@LemonadeAlpha

It is pretty hand-wavey to suggest that further participation could out-influence the contributor voting block which will soon be incentivized to collude in their interests. Even now, every vote is controlled by delegated blocks to the contributor base.

This is definitely a risk. But, in my view shareholders driving decisions to maximize gain has been done before. It is the cornerstone of the current business methodology, which is focused on TSR (total shareholder return). From an academic perspective, I find this proposal interesting in that it 1) provides massive & immediate incentivization for contributors to drive TSR and 2) it drastically dilutes currently-voting-tokens influence (whales) and appears to put contributors in charge.

I do agree that there are other models that may be more measured, but Index might be more YOLO, less nuance . Regardless, I am not selling. It will be interesting to watch the following metrics to validate impact:

• Change in voter participation (where INDEX >1)
• Change in votes cast
• INDEX performance vs. total market
• Net (Profit/loss)
• Contributor satisfaction survey (Owl Pulse) < if still done

@anthonyb.eth

The purpose is to give individual contributors a chance to actually influence governance in a way that has never before been possible. @jackiepoo’s work on the outcome of governance votes proved that contributors never really had a true say in outcome of IIPs, but this proposal would make if possible for a contributor to have a reasonable chance to be the deciding vote.

AB, thanks for the response. I really appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and suggest it illustrates solid conviction, but also solid character. Its easy to attack and discredit, its hard to craft a good response. Well done.
I applaud the focus on improving individual contributor influence, its the right thing to do for DAOs - recall a major driver of DAO voter apathy is “my vote does not matter”. If this effort is paired with an emphasis on encouraging individual contributor governance participation you could have something. But if low turnout (quorum adjustment) is “solved” using a pragmatic (lazy) workarounds like delegation or another metagovernance committee, you go back to “my vote does not matter”. The scenario illustrated below will continue. (just substitute “activist whale” with “delegate whale”.

@jackiepoo

What’s on display here is a dysfunction in the IIP governing system, where the people who are executing (the contributors) are consistently unsure if they will have the mandate to execute on anything unless they have the backing of specific activist whales who have the voting power to swing entire proposals.