Itβs true that your updated Community Verified Projects (CVP) process proposal is thorough and innovative. One positive move towards inclusive decision-making is the focus on decentralisation, which is demonstrated by allowing the community to directly submit recommendations on Snapshot 2.
Understanding your strategies for preserving openness and guarding against any abuse is very important to me, considering that the governance team eliminated the manual review procedure. Could you describe the procedures that are in place to guarantee that ideas that are submitted respect the integrity of the Metis Ecosystem and the best interests of the community?
A proactive attitude to possible problems within projects is also demonstrated by the implementation of an offboarding process. However, could you elaborate on the standards and assessment procedure that the community would use to start the offboarding process in order to make things more clear? As a result, projects that could be removed will be evaluated fairly and objectively.
As a whole, the CVP programme might benefit greatly from this suggested revision. To fully comprehend the stability and strength of the new CVP procedure, Iβm keen to learn more about these particular details.
What happen if someone malicious will share 100 Metis to 100 accounts, and post 100 proposals each time when something good will be posted on Snapshot, to attack the metis votings. Do you have some protections? Or how you will protect the posting of 18+ stuff, some bad actions? Could you explain please. Thanks in advance
It will be another Snapshot account or all such shit proposals will be posted from main Metis Governance Account?
So after that all metis CVP projects that supported community you will also support? EG Community voted for rug project that promote scam AI trading on DEXes and scam token, but they have good marketing to scam people. And if its pass the Decentralized CEG you will support it, give them grant and 'll promote it from your official Metis Twitter?
It is good to see some potential changes in CVP process.
All listed proposals are sensible as a first steps towards further improvement of the process.
Offboarding - yes! 100%!
The only think I could add is maybe not necessarily shorten the snapshot process to 24h? Maybe even make it longer?
Most new project as soon as they have a telegram chat they lauch their CVP vote. We (the voters) have not much information to lean on to make a fair vote. In my opinion it is all happening too soon.
Another idea was maybe deviding each vote into 2 stages:
1st: Draft Proposal. A draft proposal is published. People vote whether this is the time for this proposal and that it is not spam or silly or smth like that.
2nd: Final Proposal. Once draft proposal is passed it goes through to the next stage of voting where more attention is dedicated to the vote.
Also, might be sencible that at least one on-chain action should be required to submit the proposal.
Hey everyone, thank you for the feedback! I have noticed a few points that are leaning towards consensus:
@rlntlss.eth + @Prince_omobee: A quorum for the amount of addresses participating - seems like the average participation is currently 500 addresses voting, so we can set that as the minimum
@rlntlss.eth: Clarification on what promotion a project will receive - my thought is that the @MetisGovernance Twitter account will promote all governance-related posts, the @MetisDAO Twitter account will promote projects on a case-by-case basis
@Akita + @Prince_omobee: Staking requirement to participate in governance - I think this can be done in the future, the staking contracts will likely take some time
@rlntlss.eth: Quorum requirement may be too high - my criteria for evaluating the Snapshot requirement is to take a look at the projects that passed the CVP. About half of the projects that have passed CVP have achieved that quorum requirement, I think 10k is realistic, but open to feedback
@DivineT: Risk of eliminating mandatory requirements - it would be up to the community to decide if a project is beneficial to the ecosystem and will be added to a project list, the community would also be able to offboard if the project does not continue to meet the needs
@DivineT: Clarification of the offboarding process - it would be up to the community to make a sufficient proposal to remove a project from the project list and to get enough support as the onboarding process. The main question of βhow?β is up to each proposal
The largest Snapshot vote for CVP had a 37k Metis quorum, I think 100k is too high, but I like the idea of involving more of the ecosystem.
The CVP moderation team will have limited involvement in the proposals and Snapshot creation, allowing more community members to participate.
If the project fails to answer critical questions, it should be noted and the decision to vote for the project will be affected.
Staking is a good idea and will be planned in the future, likely in a separate proposal.
It would be up to the project that would like to pass the CVP process to coordinate this activity. The team should have limited involvement outside of limited moderation and spam protection, but it would be good to explore how the CVP team can help without hindering community decisions.
Shortening the Snapshot period will surely encourage prompt action and keeps the momentum going. 24 hours seems reasonable - perhaps test 12 hours in future iterations?
Having a shorter period might bring more engagement, at the risk of less evaluation. After giving it some more thought, maybe 24 hours is too short to enable time for people to respond to proposals
Consider a tiered quorum system. 10k METIS might be high for initial proposals, while a lower threshold (e.g., 5k) could encourage wider participation. Increase the quorum for final vote to ensure stability.
Multiple proposals is interesting, but might be redundant. If a project fails a quorum requirement, they can always get feedback and try again.
The grace period for offboarding is a great suggestion. Perhaps 30 days for project response and remediation before community vote on removal?
30 days for offboarding may be too long, I think the large quorum requirement and burden of proof required for offboarding would mitigate the risk for improper removal
Highlight real-world success stories of CVP projects! Showcase community-backed initiatives that thrived within the Metis ecosystem to generate excitement and demonstrate tangible benefits.
We would like to introduce future benefits to the CVP projects, including grant and promotion preference. The goal is to make this process beneficial for both the projects and the ecosystem.
It seems like it is almost a consensus that just having a quorum requirement is not enough, there also needs to be an address participation requirement. Good point!
It is also almost a consensus to keep the Snapshot to be 72 hours to allow for enough time for evaluation.
Thatβs a good point. This is possible and there is no consistent way to prevent a sybil attack, thatβs why the 10k Metis quorum will be required at a minimum. If there is abuse within the Snapshot, there may be a higher threshold of Metis that a person needs to post a proposal. There may be exceptions with posts that have malicious intent (e.g. 18+ content).
My thought is that the @MetisGovernance Twitter account will promote all governance-related posts and the @MetisDAO Twitter account will promote projects on a case-by-case basis, I think that would be the most fair outcome, but open to feedback.
Based on the data provided, I think it sounds good to start with 10k token quorum & 500 wallet address quorum.
Another question: will MIPs to the governance system itself follow this same process? For example, if 10k token quorum is not working out, would a community member be allowed to submit a MIP to change the quorum and have it run a vote?
Awesome. Iβd love to host a weekly CEG space to get community input on rolling proposals & also use it as a space for feedback, suggested improvements, and a container for projects & members to gain support for their proposals.
yeah those are definitely good terms! I agree with every point. Based on previous votes, the number of tokens voted is about 10k. So the quorum is quite justified.
I agree, the Snapshot length should be kept as is (72 hours).
I think that dividing it into 2 votes would add a lot of extra processes, if a project passes the proposal requirement, it means that it was accepted by the community, I think that having a high approval percentage would mitigate low-effort proposals.
So, Iβve been around since the early days of Metis, and need to say that Iβm a bit worried β feels like this shift could stir up trouble for the whole ecosystem, putting everyone at risk of another mess like the byte situation we had
Sure, the idea of letting the community take the reins sounds cool, but the downside is it might open the door to all sorts of random launches and rug pulls going after the eco fund money . Weβve been through this with Byte before the ceg was even up , It took a lot of back-and-forth between the community and Metis team to tighten the future requirements and make sure that kind of thing doesnβt happen again.
Letβs be real, a bunch of people vote without really knowing whatβs up. If a shady player wants to sneak in and propose something, it could easily get the green light. Just look at the track record of community votes overwhelming majority yes β not everyone can tell a legit project from a rug. If thereβs no one actively scanning or audits arenβt a must anymore, we will all be at risk
Iβm leaning towards a NO vote. I feel safer when the Metis foundation is keeping an eye on things and stopping the bad actors but because the ultimate goal is to become fully decentralised I would suggest the following :
support @Akita proposal that we set up a staking requirement, minimum 30days
Increase the vote duration to at least 48hrs so community members have more time to screen the project
Create a group where some of the community members and Metis team members are present and discuss the project which is applying - Some degree of screening must be upheld at least for the most important things to prevent rugs otherwise it will be a matter of time before community gets hurt
Do the initial screening of projects applying for funding and make it public so the community can make an Informed decision and not vote blindly.
Create bounties and allow people to earn rewards from the eco fund for finding malicious code and screening ceg applicants or hire a 3rd party to help with screening and make their reports public
Ultimately I think it will be very harmful if projects are allowed access to the funding only after passing the community voting. Votes can be manipulated and most people canβt tell if a project is a scam. Last thing we need is a scammer scamming people with the money received from the Metis team. It would be game over
I second the idea of still maintaining some sort of screening and vetting for any project putting up a proposal. A council of sorts made up of team members + community. Council releases security findings to community before vote. Kinda just brainstorming out loud but Something like that.
I know we want to decentralize and remain efficient. I think we could find a way to both decentralize SAFELY while maintaining EFFICIENCY.
Thank you for the feedback and appreciate the insight. I completely agree that standards need to be held. The 3 core points of feedback that we have received is:
Governance participation within the CVP is only for projects that pass the manual review process and are typically accepted into the program, because typically the outcomes are the same, this leads to apathy and limited participation from the community.
As a result of limited participation, Projects have limited incentive to go through the CVP, as the primary purpose is additional promotion and introduction of a project to the Metis ecosystem.
Because projects have a limited incentive to go through CVP, the Foundation is using a separate system for grants and promotional criteria.
The reason for this change is to encourage more participation and active community discussion for projects both within the ecosystem and projects that are entering the ecosystem. Ideally every project that intends to participate in the Metis ecosystem will go through this process. As a result, there would be more incentive for the community, projects, and the Foundation to work together. We ideally want governance to be more integrated with current processes.
Passing the CVP does not guarantee funding or @MetisDAO Twitter promotion, but I do think that the grant and promotional process should be tied to the CVP and additional evaluation criteria can be done for additional support.
To summarize, I think that the CVP provides transparency to projects and having a system where the community can evaluate the risks and vote for projects that provide value to the Metis ecosystem would enable higher engagement and participation for the entire ecosystem (community, projects, and the Foundation) to participate.
All projects go through a grant application process which includes due diligence checks. Every project is different, but require an audit at a minimum.
Iβm absolutely in favour of Metis opening up to builders and new community members and couldnt be more happier when I see so much interest of new folks joining the ecosystem.
I also support the idea of keeping everything tied to the cvp process, making it more accessible for more builders to take advantage of so that the ecosystem can flourish, however, as you mentioned access to twitter promotion and EDF grants should have some extra steps for projects to go through in order to receive the support to ensure no bad actors take advantage of it.
As harsh as it sounds as the chain grows no one will overly complain about being drained, rugged by a protocol that launched on the open network. Everyone should do DYOR and sadly this is how part of the crypto is right now, rugs and scammers are everywhere, 9/10 open launches on Solana are rugs now and folks bid on them regardless as just one can make them life changing money, part of the game and what also grows the tvl on the chain, we already start to see it on Metis with increased activity of memes launching and some of which rugged
Imagine however what would happen if a project received a grant and rugged the community, personally I think it would be a PR nightmare to handle and would cause a lot of FUD and lost of trust, especially since Metis has a βdelicateβ history β¦sure it can happen anyways but itβs better to be safe than sorry and thatβs why Iβm suggesting to have strict requirements/audits in place for any protocol that wants to tap into the edf fund.
Iβve read through the proposal and Iβm truly impressed by the proposed changes and improvements to be made to the governance process. I am confident that these improvements will take us a step closer towards achieving a more transparent, fair and decentralized governance process. I look forward to the proposal getting passed.
