This is ridiculous

Lets raise mir deposit for polls to 500 and we should add a report bottom once 5% reports reach the creator will not get the deposit back.

Looking at the governance polls it is just funny and looks like a chat. No one will invest in mir if they look at the governance section.


I don’t think it would be fair to raise it to 500 because the fraudulent polls were created by a millionaire while those exposing them were created by people with a lot less MIR. In that case, the millionaire would not be deterred by 500 MIR deposit while those that called him out would be and there would not be any warning on the poll page for those voters who do not follow MIR elsewhere.

I do agree there should be a report function, a severe penalty for fraudulent polls, and a three strikes and you’re out rule.


This is where votes for no, yes, abstain and “no with veto” come in. Then you can make a difference. You will never be able to have this three strikes your out method. It would not work in defi as the person can too easily transfer assets to other addresses. Makes more sense to devise a plan that can actually be implemented then moon shot ideas.

And so far to be fair you identified one fraudulent poll. Many many people here do not think all assets need an equal rating. You incentivize assets that bring TVL to a platform. That is how every protocol weighs the rewards. So saying that the other polls are fraudulent is slightly deceptive when a search of discord shows people agree with reweighting different assets.


I agree. If anything the way the voting looks on the governance screen is a complete perception nightmare.

To solve the random poll issue and to avoid the scammers from sneaking-in fraudulent polls (e.g., #164, #177) or ill-intended polls (e.g, #169, 173, #180), the following measures may be considered and implemented so that the voters are informed before casting their votes and the fraudulent poll creators are penalized to a certain degree.

(1) All polls need to have a link to the forum for forum discussion.
(2) Casting of the votes would not be enabled until the linked forum topics meets the following conditions:
—(a) X-day old (let’s say X = 7), and
—(b) View count is greater than Y (let’s say Y = 100), and
—(c) Discussed by at least Z forum participants (let’s Z = 5)
(3) The poll deposit will be forfeited if
—(a) The vote count fails to reach threshold, or
—(b) The ratio of final No/Yes votes is greater than 3

Its quickly apparent you are new to the defi space and should spend time broadening your knowledge of the space and terminology.

No with veto already exists in the defi space on other protocols. It means you are voting no and voting that the proposer loses the collateral posted for the proposal. It serves as a way for the community to fight back against frivolous proposals. Had you known this it is unlikely you would have made the comment you made.


Just answer my question, whom will be given the veto right?

I see your confusion in comparing general terminology to defi. These are smart auto executing contracts. Platforms that use this method do so as following.

A yes vote auto executes in favor. A no vote fails the proposal and does nothing. A no with veto fails the proposal and does not release the collateral moving it to the community pool.

It auto executes upon vote completion. The voters make the decision. If the poll has more votes of no with veto then when the poll closes it fails and no collateral is returned.

Had that existed here then instead of your poll saying do not vote for the other poll, which seldom works due to greed. You would have put “vote no with veto” and the person would in fact lose the collateral. Much more effective at fighting against frivolous polls.


That looks like a great idea. Do you know how to make that happen ? I think we need this urgently to stop the madness.

Unfortunately the governance system in place does not have the means for structural changes. These type of changes would take either involvement of TFL or someone modifying the code and then proposing a migration.

TFL involvement seems unlikely as you do not even see them on these forums and they recently made the entire platform decentralized. I am not attacking them as they are probably working on new projects and have busy schedules but reality is they will probably not be the source of major improvements in the short term.

Secondly we have the community. Either someone/group do it for free or are compensated. If we compensated them it would be in mir from the community pool. Would people even support such? Because if they were paid in mir they likely would dump it creating additional downward sell pressure. I never hold even 100 mir but for people who hold mir and decide most votes may be leery of such a decision.

Solutions exist but rarely are many steps taken to implement. A search of these forums show many great ideas that never come to fruition and the accounts that proposed them go dead. I speculate some people get frustrated with the slowness of change and move on to other protocols.

In simple words, everyone gets a third option – you can vote “yes”, “no”, or “no with veto”. If enough people vote “no with veto” then the proposer doesn’t get his $ back