We had this discussion in the Aragon community. In that thread I remained opposed to the idea of voting rewards, but over time I’ve warmed up to it, especially if combined with a staking mechanism as is implemented in Sovryn to encourage long-term thinking.
The reason why I’ve warmed up to the idea is that remaining informed and voting does take a lot of work, and ideally this work would be compensated. You could say “well, if voters govern well then SOV goes up in value, isn’t that enough compensation?” But this benefits all SOV holders, including those who do not vote. So to eliminate the free rider problem, we can create special rewards just for those who are actively participating in governance by voting.
Some voters might use a voting bot, but more likely is they will just delegate their vote to someone who is more active. Which isn’t a terrible outcome imo.
Right. There could be periods of like “one voting per day” and periods of nothing to vote at all.
In my head, to have distribution bound to voting simplifies the whole act. Because what if there are eg 5 votings a month where a voter participated on 3 of them? Will we count “hours of fee eligibility” on months end to distribute fair share of revenue? Sounds possible but likely overhead to devs.
If fee share pool ist “emptied and distributed” to all voters after voting feels easier.
On periods without voting the pool may just stack up until next vote, or there is some automatic voting schedule:
[if no voting occurred within last period of x days/hours → propose and initiate fee distribution vote]
Very informative thread over there.
And you’re probably right about delegation vs bots.
This seems like the best way to me, if only for the fact that it’s simple and gets the job done.
The next question is how to determine reward amounts: a fixed amount per unit of voting power per vote, or a fixed amount per unit of voting power per unit of time? I would advocate for rewards to be a fixed amount per unit of voting power per unit of time e.g. 1 SOV per unit of voting power per month. This eliminates the incentive to create votes just for the sake of increasing the total reward amount.
because the reward pool fills up (from platform usage fees), and is emptied after voting. So one can’t increase reward amount, but only frequency of payout.
If eg “only 1 vote per month” is needed for fee distribution it could very well lead to go voting on the first instance on a given month… now secured fee share… and neglecting following votings… until next month.
If pool is emptied on every voting, it makes sure that every voting counts (reward wise) at least by accumulated fee amount.
Actually yes, you’re right. I was (incorrectly) considering that rewards could include a subsidy component that comes from the protocol as well, which has been proposed in other projects but not Sovryn as far as I know. Voting rewards in Sovryn would come exclusively from protocol revenues based on the proposals I’ve seen. In which case it doesn’t make a difference how many votes there are in a given time period, as long as you vote in all of them you’d receive the same amount of rewards during that period if there were (say) ten votes as you would if there were only one vote.
Interesting… Nothing is easy. I like the idea of a set time for distributions though. As long as you voted or delegated your coins in the votes in that time period you get share of fees. If no voting happened in that time period but you got last distribution, you are still eligible.
Maybe each stake tracks how many votes you made of the total votes made. If you miss 1 of 10 you get 90 of your allocation (based on amount staked and time period staked). If you voted in 1/2, you get half your allocation. Make it cumulative over the lockup period. If you voted 2 of 2 times you get full payout but you stop voting your share slowly decreases each payout period. That would keep it easy and incentivize keeping up with votes / staying involved or delegating. I also like the idea of monthly payouts. Any flaws to that?