[BIP-113] Adjust Balancer Snapshot for AIP-17

No. BIP-112 was about double counting votes. Humpy and Andrea voted against it as a collateral attack on AIP-17, which collateral attack you seem to support…? Also, I don’t believe you answered my question.

4 Likes

You asked about BIP-112; it is related to AIP-17. Regarding your question, you probably need to ask Andrea or Humpy directly. I think they are playing a fair game, to be honest. If you want an ecosystem full of people who follow what the “leader” says, you are advocating a North Korean type of governance.

I’m asking you, man. You just used the word “fraud.” Now you’re referring to “North Korean type of governance.” You’re the one who is now using charged terms - not me, not Humpy, not Andrea - so it’s a fair ask. I repeat:

If double-voting in this situation is “fraud,” tell me, sir, what responsibility do Humpy and Andrea have in relation to any alleged “fraud” when they could have, last week, prevented the possibility of the “fraud” from occurring but voluntarily chose not to by voting against BIP-122 because they don’t like the result of AIP-17?

And as a follow-up: By voting against BIP-112 to try to neuter AIP-17, doesn’t that make Humpy and Andrea responsible for perpetuating the very same double vote issue that they are currently complaining about?

5 Likes

No, no, and no. I won’t repeat what I already said. Aura’s proposal only “solves” double counting by allowing them more voting power. It’s a collateral effect. So, I think Humpy was ok by voting against that proposal. They are not committing any “fraud” by using their voting power; I cannot say the same if Aura starts double voting now.

Thanks. Your answer perfectly illustrates the fallacy with calling the double voting “fraud.” You just said Humpy and Andrea have no responsibility for allowing the “fraud” to happen by voting against BIP-112 (because it’s justified because you also don’t like AIP-17 as they don’t), but if Aura acts on the situation that Andrea and Humpy helped perpetuate by virtue of their rejection of BIP-112, Aura is committing “fraud.”

Sir, clearly, your answers establish that a double vote by Aura cannot legitimately be considered “fraud.”

7 Likes

Vote has been queued up: https://snapshot.org/#/balancer.eth/proposal/0x76c34154eff4126506ea6cc2187e27f2fcab626476deaa5442a57146d390ba85

3 Likes

I think we go back and forward for no real reason. It’s not a matter of what Aura wants per se. It’s a matter of what’s fairer to most members around Balancer.

I just don’t understand why people are opposed to something normal. Double votes is not doing anyone a favour by the way…

3 Likes

Do I need to be the person who points out how ridiculous this statement is?

1 Like

It’s all a shit show. They are trying to sell the idea that this proposal is only about to not enable the double count for voting. It’s painful to watch. Governance Council should be demolished.

1 Like

I don’t really understand why you are opposed and becoming hostile. Please explain in plain English for me please!

6 Likes

My point here is that saying “the problem with voting on X is that it will be defeated” is… at odds with the concept of democracy? For starters.

I can only conclude at this point that youre more interested in using terms, labels, and generalities you dont understand or intentionally misapply to frame an industry in which we are all aligned in an unnecessarily negative light, at least in these instances.

The practice is irresponsible and should immediately stop.

I tried, man, but you seem to have no interest in using logic, reason, or correct terms and labels here. So have at it and continue the perversion of the English language.

Just everyone be warned that the terms and labels @ProfitMaxi uses are his or her own, are rooted in emotion, and are not supported by fact, logic, or reason.

4 Likes

Lol. I’m just trying to point out that this proposal has been misleading the whole time. It’s all about how to maximize veBAL power and not the goodwill of Aura to not double-count their votes.

2 Likes

Aura has always been able to double vote with the current snapshot strategy, nothing has changed except a proposal was voted down to change the strategy.
The article for veBAL on the Balancer page states as follows:

" All votes, whether on-chain or on Snapshot, consider veBAL voting power. … Voting power scales linearly with amount of BPT locked and with amount of remaining lock time. "

If Aura double-votes, whey will have abused an oversight in the implementation of the snapshot voting strategy in order to violate the above statement about how veBAL translates into voting power.

There are two obvious solutions to preventing Aura from double-counting from a technical perspective. One grants more power to Aura as a platform (i.e. this proposal) by allowing Aura itself to decide how to apply its full voting power, and another maintains the current power distribution where individual Aura users retain their full voting rights, but patches an oversight in the original implementation of the strategy.

It is intellectually dishonest to claim that voting down one strategy is somehow condoning double-voting. Aura was always capable of this, we are simply trying to find the most appropriate strategy to mitigate it. A more honest vote would present both alternatives at the same time, rather than trying to push this one through as the “default” and “obvious” decision.

3 Likes

Very clear explanation but surely Aura has the right to decide how best to vote with the veBAL that it controls. In this instance the Aura voters have decided to pursue the WTA strategy. This vote wa designed to patch a previous mistake in how the voting was set up and confirm the way Aura wishes to vote. Notably, the old system allowed Aura to simply not double vote as it was at the protocol level. Now that the protocol is voting they are trying to prevent their users from double voting, ie doing the right thing.

The patch in this instance is designed to prevent double voting as we have discussed and the reason it was voted down was probably more likely to start a governance fight rather than to really dig into the Aura voting strategy.

4 Likes

There will never be a “solution” to governance since DeFi is too complex for any protocol/system to operate effectively at all times. And unfortunately, many bad actors are constantly looking for opportunities to attack. It’s about whats fair and whats not fair. As soon as most people understand that, we can move forward together.

4 Likes

I think what you’re talking about is something entirely different,sir. You are talking about the purpose and intent behind putting up a proposal, which aren’t necessarily designed to present all viable options to a problem. And there are plenty of additional ways both from a political perspective and a technical perspective to patch this perceived issue other than the 2 you mentioned. Each proposal writer is free to include his or her POV in the proposal itself, unless you are saying that people shouldn’t have a voice in a governance and express their own opinions. If a proposal is completely neutral, then what’s the point of having individual authors write them.

4 Likes

The problem is that there are really two discussions happening at once. This proposal presents a solution for a simple technical problem, when the real issue at hand relates to Balancer governance overall.

There is a larger question of how liquid wrappers for BAL should be able to participate in governance. Is Aura’s proposal acceptable for maintaining a healthy governance structure or does it effectively give them complete control? Pretending that this is about “preventing double counting” is absurd, and allows dishonest actors to push this through under the guise of protecting Balancer. Acting like it is somehow “urgent” allows those same people to try to rush this through governance without adequate discussion surrounding its implications.

You say that Aura should have complete authority to decide how its votes are reflected, as if this is self-evident. I argue that this is effectively oppression by the majority. The fact that there is a disagreement means that this is worthy of discussion, but instead this thread has been focused on absurd hypotheticals regarding double counting.

3 Likes

I am not sure there are larger questions about anything here at the moment. The author simply proposes a technical fix. Discussions regarding Balancer voting, double counting etc are mostly manufactured to create disagreement where none should exist. This proposal should be read for what it is, a technical fix, plain and simple.

5 Likes

I am not sure there are larger questions about anything here at the moment.

Just because you aren’t aware of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Discussions regarding Balancer voting, double counting etc are mostly manufactured to create disagreement where none should exist.

The fact that these disagreements exist implies that this is more than a simple technical fix. This change significantly changes how much control Aura has over Balancer governance. This proposal was already downvoted once and then immediately re-proposed, meanwhile a proposal for another “technical” fix (that was more in-line with maintaining the current power dynamic) was ignored.

This proposal should be read for what it is, a technical fix, plain and simple.

There exist multiple “technical” fixes to address the apparent issue (i.e. the possibility for Aura to double vote). Each approach has broader political implications, but instead of discussing those we are pretending that this is a simple bugfix. What should happen is we should address the political questions surrounding this fix first, before trying to first force through a change that will affect the balance of power.

2 Likes