[DAO Discussion] Should we improve the voting system?

Hello frog nation,

This is my first post here. I’m part of the community for some time and what happened a week ago shocked me. For that reason, I want to become active as well and make Wonderland better than ever before. More details about me are later.

My goal is to improve Wonderland. In my opinion, the highest asset of a project is trustworthiness. We can achieve this by making the project more save.

For that reason, I created a multilayer voting system that could be used by the community to increase the trustworthiness of the project.

Before I start, please keep in mind that we as a community also could implement only a few portions of my proposal. We can also improve it together. It’s just an idea and a potential solution for our problems from the past.

Solution: Multilayer voting system.

First Step: The community create a catalog of criteria which can be grouped together to categorize proposals. For example:

  • Category 1: Has low impact on the project like the option for stakeholders which want to leave the project (rage quit).
  • Category 2: The impact on the project is middle. An example for a category like that could be: Higher risk investments for the project.
  • Category 3: The impact for the project is essential. An Example could be: Shut down Wonderland.
    Those categories are important for the next step.

Second Step: The weighting of the voting depends on the category which is described above. To explain. If the community will have category 3 vote, the procedure would look like this: Since the decision has an impact of the whole project, the voting must fulfill several requirements to be accepted. It is important that every holder’s vote will be weighted the same. That means every holder has one vote which would be spliced into two pools. The first pool is decision based on the value of the holder’s wallet. The higher the amount of the wallet value, the more weight the vote will have. In the second pool, every vote has the same weight (1000 votes means 1/1000 weight). To accept the vote for category 3 voting, both pools have to have a higher acceptance of like 51% (or more) of all voting’s.

Third Step: Define the acceptance value in % for each category. If we have an upcoming voting which has an impact for the whole project. It’s maybe not fair enough if we choose to accept the vote if the outcome is for example 51% yes to 49% no. In those cases, we could define a required amount of yes voting’s of for example 66% of all voting’s to accept the category 3 proposal.

Fourth Step: Define how many pools are necessary for each category to accept or decline a proposal. The impact on the project of a category 1 proposal is not as high as the impact of a category 3 proposal. For that reason, a category 1 proposal needs only one of two pools with a required acceptance percentage of 51% (percentage should be determined by the community) of the voting’s.

Possible voting structure: Categories combined with pools

  • Category 1A: the proposal has a low impact on the project. To accept the proposal, it has to have a 51% yes votes based on the wallet value.
  • Category 1B: the proposal has a low impact on the project. To accept the proposal, it has to have a 51% yes votes based on the total amount of voters.
  • Category 2A: the proposal has a middle impact on the project. To accept the proposal, it has to have a 60% yes votes based on the wallet value.
  • Category 2B: the proposal has a middle impact on the project. To accept the proposal, it has to have a 60% yes votes based on the total amount of voters.
  • Category 2C: the proposal has a middle impact on the project. To accept the proposal, it has to have a 60% yes votes based on the total amount of voters and the amount of value of the wallet.
  • Category 3: the proposal has a high impact on the project. To accept the proposal, it has to have a 66% yes votes based on the total amount of voters and the amount of value of the wallet.

Note like mentioned before: the %-base can be defined by the community as well as the category system or the pool system.

This proposal is a small frogs idea. It is for you guys; I believe in you. If you want me to work out a detailed concept, let me know.

To my bio: I have a bachelor of science degree in data science and currently I’m working on my master of science degree in business administration with a major in innovation management. I’m a highly innovative person. If you guys wish that I invest more time for wonderland, let me know. I have always good solutions for problems. If you want me to continue, write me, I’m willing to put more time into the project for the community (for example, I have made a potential mechanism for a rage quit option).
I share my opinions with other frogs that are my real-life friends, so they help me a lot and we challenge each other constantly.

I want to be as transparent as possible. My next steps would be:

  • I would have to analyze Wonderland from the point of view of a category system
  • Create a value analysis of the processes to transfer them into the categories
  • Weight the processes and categories depending on a weighting system based on criteria like impact on the project
    ** Create maybe one or two alternatives
  • Create a calculating system to make a fair vote for each category
    ** Create one or two test scenarios for possible future proposals
  • Add additional requirements from the community
  • Check for technical dependencies
  • Check if the voting system is reliable if the dynamics of the project changes: like the value of the project grows asymmetric to the frog nation
  • Learn from mistakes and approve the system also while design it
  • Create a proper description of the mechanism and validate it from the community

I want to add: this voting system could be changed any time if the community want to. We could do it by proposal and vote for it

See you guys.



For me this sounds like a really good way to improve the voting system. Give the frogs a voice :frog:

1 Like

I think the idea behind this is really good. High impact decisions need broader support then low impact decisions.

The only thing that wont work imo are the A B categories. If you count wallets as voters, then you make it possible for voters to split their coins in multiple wallets and vote as many times as they want.

Would def like to see a more detailed draft of the categories!

I agree with it. Sounds fair and gives a way to move on! Lets Go frogs!

Thanks a lot LarryFisherman, I’ll soon start to make a detailed draft. Thanks for your input! :slight_smile:

We will never get anything done in Category 2C and 3… :roll_eyes:

Hello z0li

sure you can. Imagine the following scenario: After the DAO discussion, you go to the Request for Change (RFC) phase. There you evaluate the impact on the project against the policy we have defined as the set of rules we are creating with this proposal. After this phase, you enter the Wonderland Improvment Proposal (WIP) where you let the community decide whether or not to accept the change. Since every proposal must go through this process, you can install the new voting system.

Do not hesitate to ask any further questions or express any ambiguities.

In the meantime, have a great day!

Whale wallets have a really high chance to block votes that need 60% yes.

I think we should implement something to heavily benefit long term holders. Also, just like in real life you can’t vote until you 18, here we could say you can’t vote until you hold the tokens for a month or two. And your vote counts as 1.1 if you hold more than for example 6 months.

Hello z0li

This is a great idea and a great post. I wanted to make the system fairer for this reason. I think it is important that every holder has an equal influence through their vote. To me whales also have the right to vote, sometimes it could be fair if the value of the wallet makes the difference and sometimes all votes make the difference and sometimes maybe a mix of both. It’s also a good point that you have to be a holder for a certain amount of time. That was also part of my idea but a bit too complicated in my short first post. I am currently working on a detailed process for this reason.

Keep up the good inputs, I appreciate them very much

Have a great day

One more thing: I read in another topic that the reason why the voting system is based on the amount of tokens because just like in real life, the higher amount you invest in a company, the you get a higher percentage → higher voting power. The issue with this is if someone bought 6 months ago at a 10-15k price have way less tokens than the person who bought in the recent weeks at 500USD. So the same amount of invested money results in an extremely unbalanced voting power.
So maybe we should consider to count the amount of stable coins exchanged to TIME as voting power.

Hello again z0li

another important point to consider. As you said, it’s the same as in the stock market. The return you get depends on the risk you are willing to take. You need to consider the following thing. You can make a currency safer if you put more rules in place. You reduce the risk of losing money. On the other hand, it makes your commodity less attractive to potential investors. The hard part is to find the right way. For this reason, my idea holds both options, that is: in one pool, the percentage value of your own wallet counts, on the other hand, the percentage vote of all holders.

An example could be: If we decide to rename the project, the voter with the higher percentage value of his wallet could have more influence on the vote, because from a marketing point of view you have to be careful when you change the name of your brand/coin. This has to do with trust. On the other hand, for high influence votes, maybe both pools need to be taken into account, i.e. if you want to shut down the project, 60% of the value-based wallets and 60% of the total number of holders need to vote yes.

You could also take into account the time you have invested and include that data in the decision, on the other hand you could also invest 500USD at the same time to increase your influence on the project. This will be part of my variants that I will describe. In the end, the frog nation has to decide which way we go.

But thanks a lot for your answers, they are very important for me. Please keep up the good work and maybe some other frogs will join the discussion.

Have a great day!

Is there any update for this discussion? As i really would like to see this idea getting implemented :frog:

@MiMikry.MM Hope you’re doing well! I really would like to hear more about the voting system :frog:

I like it a lot but I think it would need to be fleshed out more and simplified and made in a way that is very user friendly. Make it so that it is fun to vote so that people are drawn into the system you are proposing, from that point it could be further developed and implemented into the core voting structure of the Wonderland DAO. But implementing voting measures into a newfound governance system is no small thing, I stress the importance of design. It must draw in people who are part and want to be part of the community first and foremost rather than trying to solve everything that is wrong with the current voting system at the same time. some will stay and find passion in the ability to have a say in the voting process, but many more will come and go. I would love to input my own ideas and add to what you are thinking here, you are on to something!

Hello everyone

Thanks for your reply! It’s constructive to see that my idea gets attention. I hope more frogs will jump on the topic. I’m currently working on the first draft. It’s not easy to make a concept. It takes some time, but I’ll come up with a first draft in a few days.

The idea is to describe a possible solution and offer a viable implementation method in the current process. It would be possible to install the final solution step by step, as you mentioned @bottlecapman. Keep up, frogs, let me know your ideas, and apply a solution to improve our project.

Thanks for your patience, and you will hear from me soon.


Once this RAGEQUIT is over, there needs to be a full overhaul of the voting procedures.

May I suggest:
1 vote = 0.1 to 10 MEMO
2 votes = 10.1 to 100 MEMO
3 votes 100.1 to 1000 MEMO
4 votes 1000.1 to 10000 MEMO
5 votes 10000.1 to 1000000 MEMO
6 votes 1000000.1 and above
This could make future voting a lot fairer.

Also, would it be possible to remove the backing price, the bait for the attack on the treasury?

Something like that would stop them splitting and getting a better voting power

if you could code something similar to that…

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.