So, the question is simple:
Do we want to have a board to handle the SLP loan votes, or not?
Reasons/thoughts behind this:
- Too many votes can be overwhelming for the community, this could slow down the voting process, resulting in losing some of our advantage
- Assigning a small board of people who we trust to handle this can solve it
- On the other hand, this -in a way- results of someone else deciding on your investment behaviour
The way this would work (based mostly on current telegram discussion)
- People volunteer, and we as a community vote on who should be part of this board
- The board membership is fixed term (3 months maybe?)
- Before every cycle, we have to vote again. Everyone would have to apply again.
- Maybe we should honour the members somehow? After all, they do work for us, no-one can expect them to do this every day for free for months (maybe slightly bigger staking rewards or something for the period?
Personal token voting rights delegation instead of a voted board. This means you can pick XY individual who volunteered for this, and delegate your token’s voting power (so not the tokens themselves!) to that person. In case you are not satisfied with how this person used your voting power, you can take the delegation back any time and either give it to someone else, or not give it at all and use it yourself.
I’ll update this post with the current consensus so that it always shows up to date information.
I agree with managing loan approval through a board for two reasons.
the first concerns the technical capacity to decide if the requirements are met for approval, certainly that an elected panel will have a greater sensitivity to analyze the candidates.
the second point is related to the quorum, through a board we guarantee the quorum in the decision.
in order not to lose the “power over our vote” the “tokens grant” on our part should be:
- given nominally to one member and not shared out among all board members
- have an expiration date
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by token grant. Could you please elaborate?
Do you mean we wouldn’t simply elect a board to vote, but with our vote, we’d actually give them a token grant, to vote with our tokens?
I think for me, I am not sure I have enough information to make a decision on this yet. When I can see what the SLP voting interface will look like and how it will operate, I feel I will be able to better decide. I’m open to everyone’s insight for sure, though!
My crypto my keys is equivalent to my tokens my vote… youre effectively requesting a vote to reduce a stake holders voice in governing. You are free to delegate your tokens in line with your boards reccomendation. As for me and this proposal in its current form im a NO.
Thank you for starting the ball rolling. I’m not sure what you mean when you say too many votes could slow the process down? If there is a time period when votes have to be submitted, that will give everyone the opportunity to vote if they want.
By Token grant there is 2 ways to do this - we can have elections - or people can delegate their tokens for a vote… for example, you could say I trust Adam and I will delegate all my voting power of my tokens to his wallet… The other way is we have yearly… or if someone ever resigns… elections. Those people elected are the ones who vote on behalf of the token holders.
With delegation you could immediately take your tokens away after a bad deal you didn’t like… with voting its a much more drawn-out process.
What I mean is, if we have a board of smaller people, who volunteer for this and take it seriously, we can expect quick votes. If we have to wait for the community, it might take days to get everyone moving (see: there are barely any active people here…), which could mean by the time enough votes come in, the client already got something somewhere else, from someone faster and more efficient.
Also, if this really takes off and the community would have to vote on 50 loans/day, that’s not realistic, people would just simply stop voting as it’s a hassle.
I like the delegation idea as well, I’ll update the top post with it, thanks!
I’m honestly not sure I would want to delegate. There are some topics not everyone will agree to elect. I would still want the choice to be able to vote for those loans or investments on my own if I have the time. The committee should be there for those that do not wish to choose. I still think there should be a time limit for voting. 24-30 hours should be maximum which also gives those waiting on approvals an expectation on how long the process should take.
I’m in favor of anything that speed up the loan process. We want to revolutionize the industry not drag out a long voting process. Delegating makes sense.
An idea I had that I didn’t see here is to have the board vote on loan approval as has been said. We could also have the community vote count as one (or more) of the seats on the board. That way the community still has a say for those that wish to participate.
Delegation should perhaps be an option, but the delegate would have to shoulder the gas fee to sign the vote?
I suggest the following format for delegates.
5 Delegates will need to commit to a one-year term. If a delegate decides to resign, they should expect to finish their job duties until a replacement can be voted upon. If a delegate unexpectedly quits a search for a new delegate will begin immediately. All delegates will be voted on after volunteering themselves to be a delegate. A proposal will be created for each delegate or group of delegates to complete a vote. Delegates are also required to explain their experience in their proposal before being voted in. Delegates will also be required to, at minimum, have one Telegram community open forum discussion, where the community can ask questions to a delegate before confirming them. Delegates will be required to undergo a 3rd party KYC/Compliance check (there are many to use). As long as the KYC process validates the person and AML laws have not been violated, they can be delegates.
Delegates are only required to review the following, everything else should be pre-determined by the $BSL token holders.
- Ensure costs of the project are reasonable
- Ensure the appraised value, provided by a 3rd party, is valid and acceptable
- Ensure that the project has the ability to repay the loan in the time requested for the loan based on costs, LTV, and post-completion sales potential.
3 out of 5 delegates will need to approve an on-chain vote for each loan so that the loan is visible. If a loan is not approved, $BSL token holders can create a Proposal to bring the loan back for review. The denied loan would then be put through the community DAO process to override the delegate decision. This would give the community the ability to fund any and all loans, regardless of the delegates.
Delegates should have some finance, banking, and hard money experience and should be familiar with the concepts in this proposal.
This sounds great. I suggest volunteers highlight their experience in the industries, that will be a very important factor for me to consider them. This is an acceptable and well thought out system. Let’s do it up!
Might need to add if delegates can serve back to back forever if keep getting voted in. Allowing the community to basically veto a declined loan seems like a good checks and balances system.
I love this!
It is clear, well thought out, with checks and balances, and while fast and comfortable, still doesn’t mean the community gives up all of it’s power. This definitely gets my vote, as-is.
I’ll update the starting comment with this proposal.
I for one would be much more comfortable staking my tokens, in the knowledge experts were responsible for granting of loans.
My view is that the community should be able to vote on the rates, and the risk they are prepared to take, based on rankings by a block score/credit score.
Any more involvement would slow the process down surely?
Interested to hear from somebody with an understanding of how banks grant/decline loans at the moment, as there has to be some automated process.
Ok, I cannot edit the main post, seems like there’s a time limit.
Well thought out proposal John. So long as the delegates are doing well and want to continue serving after their 12 month term, should they need to get voted in again or is there a different way to run that? I know that may be too far in advance or not needed right now, just curious. I am good to vote.