Sounds good, bro. Relying on veBAL voters is fine, but from my understanding, projects are being gated off before they even have a chance to reach voters. I haven’t been involved in these conversations, so feel free to correct me if this isn’t accurate.
1 Like
I think a lot of the gauge addition process is a BD conversation with projects about what kinds of caps/gauges/pools would be approproiate for governance.
It started off as explaining BIP-42, but the thinking there has changed a lot. This is think it is eventually important to get a good framework in place that removes a lot of the politics from this process. We just don’t have the budget in our team to handle all this system development and there’s other priorities.
That being said any DAO is always welcome to post a Gauge Governance request to the forum for open feedback/conversation and a vote. I think the conversations you’re talking about tend to more be helping DAO’s understand how that conversation is likely to go before they put themselves out there.
2 Likes
I definitely agree on this. The ideal system is probably as close to permissionless as possible. But I respect that there is a need to properly allocate limited resources.
I’m not going to get into a big thing on this one. The Maxis, Lipman, Json, you guys are all doing solid work and have a difficult job. Just wanted to check up and drop a quick note that Aura is supportive of most gauges (and chains) these days, so there is essentially some sort of faux optimistic approval in place already. It’s important that projects know that voters are likely to look favorably on most proposals. We need to trust that voters will be intelligent enough to understand whether a proposal is value extractive or value additive, rather than make that call for them.
2 Likes
Thanks for your comment and checking in. In general, optimistic voting would be great addition to our setup but as it stands now we are just not there yet. The core pools, gauge system and everything surrounding emissions is a crucial component of our economic engine and should be treated as such.
As I outlined here in the section for improvement workstreams, we first need to stabilize the current system and make it easier overall for a partner to onboard. Only then we are confident enough and have the processes in place to transition to an “as permissionless as possible” gauge add (and removal) process.
2 Likes
Sounds good, brother. The RFC you authored is well laid out and the reasoning is sound. Keep up the great work–no further comments on my end.
3 Likes