[Proposal] Reduce quorum to list new assets

Correct me if I’m wrong, but adding new assets costs nothing and there is no risk in adding a new asset. Worst case it won’t be traded much…

Mirror protocol aims to be the “new Robinhood”. To achieve this, the platform must list new assets to attract the interet of new traders. I’ve seen the past votes and various interesting new assets got rejected because the quorum was not reached. E.g. see SPY, it was rejected in poll 67 now it’s being voted again in poll 74. See poll 72 for SPCE (Virgin Galactic), quorum was reached and there was a clear majority of YES, but a few hours before the end of the vote, the quorum increased and the poll was rejected just for a little percent missing to reach the new adjusted quorum.

My proposal: reduce the quorum for new assets to 5%. I’d say even less: 3% (or why even have a quorum at all?!).

The reason again is that new assets don’t hurt the system, but rather make it more interesting. Like this we avoid wasting time to create a new poll if the first one is rejected, like SPCE. If somebody has reasons to be against a new asset to be listed he has to stake his MIR and vote NO. Else if there is even just a minority very interested to list an asset (e.g. see now the Vietnam ETF fund, even if it’s not very interesting for many, there is claerly interest in it, the poll will probably be rejected because of the quorum… again), I don’t see why they have to be punished just because the majority of other potential voters don’t care about it, but stake their MIR just for the interests they gain in staking…

I’m new in mirror protocol and if I understand it right I can create a poll. Before doing so I’d like to hear some of your thoughts and suggest a poll that has a possibility to win both interest and a majority of YES.

I will edit this proposal as soon as the idea is clear and make a poll accordingly.

Thank you.

1 Like

Main issue with adding new assets right now they are dilutive to LP rewards and if there isnt much interest the LP’ers will get rekt with illiquidity when they want to exit. This is especially true if the price of the asset goes down significantly because a junk asset was added. I think adjusting quorum might be premature and instead the incentives for governance participation should be changed as Do mentioned in the v2 upgrades.

2 Likes

Because each new masset will get an equal share of the masset LP staking MIR distribution for the next four years. The pool of our governance token should be spent responsibly. MIR will become worthless if owning it doesn’t control the platform.

1 Like

This is a difficult question. I don’t think we need to reduce it, but we need more incentives to actually vote. At the moment, only about a quarter of Mirror staked in Governance are actually commited to any vote. At the moment, rather than voting against a proposol and actually convince people it’s bad, you can just sit out anything you don’t like.
I have a few ideas how to possibly fix the system without lowering the quorum:

  1. Once a quorum is reached, it should flip a switch locking that condition in. Most people will assume a proposal which has fullfilled the quorum today, has reached its goal and not vote on it. So in order to abuse the system you can deposit just enough mir into governance to snipe away the quorum last minute. This should not be possible

  2. People should receive more governance rewards if they actually govern. Mir locked in Governance that are not locked into proposals should get lower rewards than mir that are actually used to govern.

  3. (this needs some more thinking): It should be possible to vote for multiple proposals at some point. I don’t really see the value in locking the mir into a specific proposal. Locking them in general while voting is a good thing, but I don’t see the reason to limit you to one vote at a time. At the moment it always feels bad to vote, because you think “I can’t use them to vote for anything else anymore”. Sometimes there are multiple proposals you have a strong opinion on that you can’t express this way.

Those are some ideas. Maybe more will come to me later

2 Likes

@muksell good ideas,

  • regarding point 1 - I agree, it also would make it less confusing, to me for example it was a default behavior - once quorum is reached - proposal is passed. and certainly it opens a possibility to reject a vote by suddenly adding a bunch of MIR to governance in the end of the proposal timebox
  • point 2 is being discussed for mirror v2, I believe
  • regarding point 3 (voting for multiple proposals) - it is possible already
1 Like

Yeah, saw point 2 in the v2 thread later and was happy about it. Speaking on point 3: I did not know it. Maybe the warning telling you that your mir is locked should be formulated another way. I just assumed it would be locked into one specific proposal. And I don’t think I would be the only one to think that. Maybe add a sentence like “you can, however, use staked mir to vote in multiple proposals simultaneously.”

1 Like

true, I actually thought the same at first)
so, agreed, it could be stated more clearly somewhere!

I like nr 2 because with SPCE exactly this happened. Quorum was reached already and I bet it was by accident that some users just added their MIR for staking and didn’t care about the vote, so the ones who cared got punished because of those last comers who actually had “no right to vote”.

I mean why the quorum is recalculated every millisecond. The quorum should be fixed from the moment of the vote. If more MIR are staked (or unstaked) after the vote was initiated, those MIR should not affect the quorum.

1 Like

Thanks @yod @tj2 @muksell @alagiz for the answers.

So to sum up my initial proposal can be replaced with a more reasonable one (point nr 1 by @muksell), as follows:

In the moment someone posts a proposal or a new mAsset to be whitelisted, as soon as the transaction is confirmed, the quorum should be calculated in that specific time and not change in time.

What do you think? More reasonable?

1 Like

We are aware of this issue and are looking to solve it soon. :slight_smile:

4 Likes

So I guess there is no need to make a poll? Cool, also because it would be quite expensive to stake 100 MIR for a poll. I rather use them to vote :wink: