𝘼𝙋𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙑𝙀𝘿 | [MIP-5] Phased Upgrade to the CVP System

daryledwards · February 6, 2025, 10:15pm

Abstract

This proposal introduces Phase 1 of a structured upgrade to the CVP system, aimed at increasing participation, reducing Sybil influence, enhancing transparency, and improving resource allocation. The proposed changes include adjusting governance voting minimums, introducing batch voting, implementing a fast-track option, and launching structured outreach initiatives such as AI-generated project summaries and AMAs. These changes will make CVP voting more meaningful and scalable while setting the foundation for future improvements.

Additional discussion can be reviewed in the [Temp Check] CVP Upgrade Proposal.

Purpose

The goal of this proposal is to align the CVP system with the long-term success of high-quality dApps launching on Metis by:

Increasing participation in CVP eligibility votes to boost community engagement and awareness.
Reducing Sybil votes to ensure governance reflects genuine community sentiment.
Improving transparency and safety for Metis users researching new projects.
Optimizing how marketing resources are allocated to maximize ecosystem impact.

Background

The current CVP system is a gatekeeping mechanism for projects requesting marketing support and resources from the Metis Foundation. However, several challenges have emerged:

Sybil attacks (fake wallets, low-value votes) distort results and artificially help projects reach quorum.
Governance fatigue is a growing issue, as tokenholders struggle to vet an increasing number of projects.
Unclear expectations around marketing support have led to misconceptions that passing CVP automatically guarantees promotional backing from the Metis Foundation.

This proposal seeks to implement immediate improvements to address these issues while laying the groundwork for future enhancements.

Proposal

Phase 1: Immediate Upgrades to the CVP System

The following structural and outreach changes will be implemented:

1. Structural Changes

1.1 Voting Minimums

Set a minimum of 0.1 METIS to participate in CVP votes.
Reduce quorum from 500 to 400 unique wallets.
UPDATE: Reduce Token Quorum from 10k METIS to 5k METIS, ONLY for CVP votes. All other voting types remain unchanged.
Rationale: This makes Sybil attacks more expensive while ensuring a low barrier for governance participation. A 0.1 METIS threshold ensures that voters have at least minimal alignment with the Metis ecosystem. Additionally, reducing token quorum for CVP votes only balances adjusting for market conditions with minimizing risk of capture and centralization.

1.2 Batch Voting

Group votes into batches of 3–5 projects, held on a set schedule (e.g., monthly or bi-monthly).
Rationale: Reduces governance fatigue, making it easier for tokenholders to review projects in a structured manner.

1.3 Fast-Track Option

Allow projects to opt out of batch voting and outreach initiatives if they prefer an immediate vote.
Rationale: Provides flexibility for projects confident in their ability to meet quorum independently.

2. Outreach Initiatives

2.1 AI-Generated Podcast Summaries

Each project in the eligibility vote batch will have an AI-generated podcast episode summarizing its key details.
Implementation:
- Projects will submit relevant documentation (pitch decks, summaries).
- The AI-generated podcast will be shared on Metis governance channels.
Rationale: This enables tokenholders to easily research projects without extensive manual effort.

2.2 Project Showcases (AMAs & Shill Sessions)

Projects will have structured opportunities to present to the community before votes are held.
Implementation:
- Live AMAs/shill sessions will be scheduled before each batch vote.
- Recordings will be made available for asynchronous participation.
Rationale: Provides direct engagement between projects and the Metis community, increasing transparency and engagement.

3. Marketing Resource Clarification

Clearly communicate that passing CVP makes a project eligible for marketing support but does not guarantee it.
Rationale: Ensures projects understand that marketing support is allocated based on strategic priorities rather than automatically granted.

Next Steps & Future Considerations

If approved, these changes will be implemented immediately and monitored for effectiveness. The following conditions will determine readiness for future upgrades:

Voting participation: Quorum (400 wallets, 5k METIS) is consistently met without additional interventions beyond the structured outreach initiatives.
Sybil mitigation: The percentage of Sybil votes falls below 10%.
Community engagement: AMA participation and podcast listening rates indicate meaningful interaction.
Effectiveness review: If the Phase 1 adjustments fail to produce the desired outcomes, the strategy will be revised before advancing to future phases.

Longer-term enhancements such as tiered verification, community-led safety audits, and additional security features will be considered in subsequent phases but are not part of this proposal.

Conclusion

This proposal introduces structured, low-overhead governance improvements to increase participation, reduce Sybil votes, enhance transparency, and optimize marketing resource allocation. By implementing these immediate upgrades, the CVP system will become more scalable and aligned with the growth of high-quality projects in the Metis ecosystem.

Joey · February 11, 2025, 6:26pm

The way i see it is, voting mechanisms for Chains needs to based on actual engagement and activity of the chains community

Regardless how many wallets and how much metis, if only 3k worth of Metis in users are participating then setting requirements of 10k doesnt make alot of sense

AMA’s campaigning etc only goes so far especially for a project thats new to Metis like us, and bribing people to vote doesn’t make alot of sense either.

That’s how onboarding becomes smoother and more effecient for a chain to grow

And realistically new Metis projects won’t know people with big wallets
Or have large communities with Metis in wallets voting for them.

The current way if I’m being honest doesn’t really accomplish the goals I’m sure you guys are trying to accomplish

Basically a few whales can decide who’s in and who’s out, I mean for all we know maybe Metis itself is a whale and likes certain projects and votes for them etc

Second issue is it’s way to dependant on market and peoples financial situation (how much $METIS they hold)

And also way to dependant on a chains activity (Chain loses activity = harder for new projects to get votes = less growth for chain = a bad spiral effect) which is not sustainable for a chains growth and is not friendly for new projects looking to join Metis.

So what can be done short term?

Well for starters, take a look at how much views and comments the average proposal from new projects get, study the correlation between the average votes a new project gets vs the market conditions at that time and if possible look at any relevant info to why some projects may have gotten more votes and others less, and be realistic when thinking of a the amount of Tokens should be voting for a project to get accepted.

From what I have gathered from looking at the above that I mentioned, I can’t see a new project like ourselves or anyone in similar position getting more than 4k Metis in votes.

For some reference, we have hosted multiple Metis AMA’s, made connections with other projects and friends, joined and connected with Metis groups, run Metis campaigns, onboarded 70k New Metis wallets, we tweeted about our vote, we made discord announcement, we posted on Telegram, we asked Metis communities in group chat to vote

And after all that we got 3.4k votes and barely any views on our proposal, and Futuris who was being voted for at the same time as us got 3k Metis in votes, so even less.

Now market conditions are even worse than 3 weeks ago.

Amount of $METIS held in wallets does not = Amount of $METIS in Active voting wallets.

I suggest lowering the $METIS amount requirement

LONGTERM
Longterm I suggest changing the whole system itself, I have some ideas but for another day.

This system is a great idea in theory but not sustainable in the longterm in my opinion, too many external factors that could end up causing disruption and annoyances as it is right now.

It’s also not a very friendly onboarding process for new Metis projects when scaling the amount of New projects Metis wants to onboard.

A voting process should be according to whether a project is doing something good, product, utility, or anything Metis values.

It should not be based on who has better marketing and campaigning, or who is connected to more whales that hold Metis or which project is more liked by community members.

Cause currently this is whats expected of us.

Thank you look forward to be apart of change and improvement, and I love seeing the effort from Metis to find ways to do better for the chain and for the community!

daryledwards · February 12, 2025, 4:14pm

@Joey thanks so much for sharing this. I really appreciate your thoughts and all the effort you’ve put into engaging the Metis community. These are real issues—low voter turnout, whale influence, and market dependency—that I’ve also been looking at.

That said, there are risks—a lower quorum makes it easier for a small group to push things through, and we still need to avoid governance capture. Build Finance, Yearn, Compound, Pocket Network, etc etc all had well-known issues.

Best practice is to make changes incrementally, with a good rule of thumb being 30%. I think if we limit the quorum reduction to ONLY CVP votes, that would reduce the risks enough to stretch to a 50% reduction, taking into account the market conditions as you mention. With the addition of the increased outreach initiatives as per #2 in MIP-5 above, I expect reaching this new token quorum should be even easier.

Therefore, I’d like to propose a practical immediate step of lowering the quorum for CVP votes to 5k METIS. I will update the above MIP-5 proposal accordingly.

Medium-term, we should absolutely look at studying the correlation between proposal votes and market conditions, but with the token minimum and outreach mechanisms (eg podcast) in place, which I think will change things significantly. We’re also already studying reputation-based voting, incentives for consistent voters, adjustments based on actual participation trends, among others. I’m planning at least 1 new temp check next week, with many more to come.

kehmor · February 13, 2025, 6:14pm

I was initially excited to see that you had created a thread on this topic; but I have to say I am disappointed by the content. Here’s why:

Zero accountability. As we discussed, and you agreed, there is currently nothing approaching a fair vote for any of the CVP projects. Whales and bot farms dictate the results. Why is this not highlighted as the current problem being solved? Without fully acknowledging the current issue you hinder any meaningful discussion whilst also simply absolving Metis of its current shortcomings.
0.1 Metis minimum will likely do nothing to dissuade the current sybil attackers or future ones. For a 100 account farm, that’s like $200. You really think that will be too much of a financial stretch.
Why is Proof of Personage not being developed as a solution? The tech exists. It is much more robust than anything listed here. It does not require doxing.
What steps will be taken to address projects that passed quorum that should not have?

psinelnikov · February 14, 2025, 8:41am

Thank you for the feedback! #1-3 are related to Sybils and Whales controlling the outcomes of votes. The current system attempted to fix this by splitting the number of Metis voted (10k) and the number of wallets voting (500). This proposal reduces the requirements (5k Metis from 400 unique wallets), adds a economic barrier to Sybils (0.1 Metis), and makes the process generally accessible to both the Metis community (batch voting) and Projects (fast-track option). The overall goal of this proposal is to increase the usage of CVP System. There is an intent to create additional requirements (tiered verification) for project evaluations, which will have higher requirements to pass.

There are ways to associate activity using on-chain data, the problem is that any restrictions based on this would make it difficult for real users to participate. I think that minimal changes to the existing system with the goal of increasing participation and extending it with additional verification methods with increased restrictions for both projects and reviewers would work best.

For #4, because the projects passed under specific requirements, all projects that met those requirements should keep their status. As mentioned, tiered verification is planned and projects that passed CVP are not guaranteed to pass other verification tiers.