This Constitutional AIP proposes improvements to the ArbitrumDAO Constitution and the Security Council election process, which include:
This AIP aims to improve the election process ensuring that candidates are not overlooked during the nominee selection stage and that candidates stand an equal chance of being nominated to the following stage of the election process, irrespective of when in the registration period they express their interest. It also updates the system so contenders must provide a signed message before running in the elections - this ensures they are able to produce signed messages for the different chains that the Security Council needs the ability to act on.
Issues with the current Security Council election process:
In the nominee Selection stage, because contender registration and endorsement occur in the same 7-day period, delegates are likely to overlook applications that are submitted at the end of the period. This results in candidates who submit their applications at the start of the period having an unfair advantage, as they are more likely to be endorsed and therefore progress to the next stage.
Candidates might sign up to the elections using an on-chain smart contract wallet which is not able to produce signatures valid for other ArbitrumDAO-governed chains.
The constitution does not clearly express the election procedure.
Accordingly, this AIP aims to implement the following changes:
The code representing the proposed changes is final and available for full review in: https://github.com/ArbitrumFoundation/governance/pull/231 and https://github.com/ArbitrumFoundation/docs/pull/731
The Governance Action contract was deployed and is available for review in https://arbiscan.io/address/0xd9a2e0e5d7509f0bf1b2d33884f8c1b4d4490879#code
This Constitutional AIP proposes improvements to the ArbitrumDAO Constitution and the Security Council election process, which include:
This AIP aims to improve the election process ensuring that candidates are not overlooked during the nominee selection stage and that candidates stand an equal chance of being nominated to the following stage of the election process, irrespective of when in the registration period they express their interest. It also updates the system so contenders must provide a signed message before running in the elections - this ensures they are able to produce signed messages for the different chains that the Security Council needs the ability to act on.
Issues with the current Security Council election process:
In the nominee Selection stage, because contender registration and endorsement occur in the same 7-day period, delegates are likely to overlook applications that are submitted at the end of the period. This results in candidates who submit their applications at the start of the period having an unfair advantage, as they are more likely to be endorsed and therefore progress to the next stage.
Candidates might sign up to the elections using an on-chain smart contract wallet which is not able to produce signatures valid for other ArbitrumDAO-governed chains.
The constitution does not clearly express the election procedure.
Accordingly, this AIP aims to implement the following changes:
The code representing the proposed changes is final and available for full review in: https://github.com/ArbitrumFoundation/governance/pull/231 and https://github.com/ArbitrumFoundation/docs/pull/731
The Governance Action contract was deployed and is available for review in https://arbiscan.io/address/0xd9a2e0e5d7509f0bf1b2d33884f8c1b4d4490879#code
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-3: EventHorizon.vote/vote
The Event Horizon Community Voted to Support this Proposal ehARB-3: EventHorizon.vote/vote
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-changes-to-the-constitution-and-the-security-council-election-process/20856/22?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-changes-to-the-constitution-and-the-security-council-election-process/20856/23?u=princetonblockchain
I think the dedicated week for candidates to apply will make the Security Council Election process more fair, competitive, and accessible.
Changes make elections fairer by giving everyone enough time to apply and review the candidates.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-changes-to-the-constitution-and-the-security-council-election-process/20856/14?u=krst
Vote for proposal to ensure fair candidate consideration, require signed messages for candidacy, and update constitution for clarity.
Providing better wording is essential to ensure clarity in the Constitution and the community at large. DAOStewards voted in favor
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-changes-to-the-constitution-and-the-security-council-election-process/20856/14?u=krst
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-changes-to-the-constitution-and-the-security-council-election-process/20856/13?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-changes-to-the-constitution-and-the-security-council-election-process/20856/7?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-changes-to-the-constitution-and-the-security-council-election-process/20856/22?u=bob-rossi
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-changes-to-the-constitution-and-the-security-council-election-process/20856/23?u=princetonblockchain
I think the dedicated week for candidates to apply will make the Security Council Election process more fair, competitive, and accessible.
Changes make elections fairer by giving everyone enough time to apply and review the candidates.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-changes-to-the-constitution-and-the-security-council-election-process/20856/14?u=krst
Vote for proposal to ensure fair candidate consideration, require signed messages for candidacy, and update constitution for clarity.
Providing better wording is essential to ensure clarity in the Constitution and the community at large. DAOStewards voted in favor
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-changes-to-the-constitution-and-the-security-council-election-process/20856/14?u=krst
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-changes-to-the-constitution-and-the-security-council-election-process/20856/13?u=griff
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-changes-to-the-constitution-and-the-security-council-election-process/20856/7?u=bob-rossi
The current election system is designed to take into account the unshielded nature of votes. It is important that you know the current running amount of votes since particular thresholds elect different individuals and allow delegates to strategically use their vote.
That said, the wider overall election system would need to be thought through instead of just adding shielded voting to the current system.
The current election system is designed to take into account the unshielded nature of votes. It is important that you know the current running amount of votes since particular thresholds elect different individuals and allow delegates to strategically use their vote.
That said, the wider overall election system would need to be thought through instead of just adding shielded voting to the current system.
On a separate note, current systems that allow for zero knowledge / shielded voting haven't been deployed in production at scale yet - adopting early constructions that haven't been battle tested could put the community at risk. A16Z Crypto made a blogpost on Cicada but that for example only offers running ballot privacy, not individual voter privacy.
The security council elections are critical for the security of the Arbitrum ecosystem, and the systems used for it should be considered by the community carefully.
The work has been audited by Trail of Bits, the full audit report is available below Trail of Bits - Arbitrum Upgrades - Summary Report - Public.pdf|attachment (576.7 KB)
The proposal calldata is available in https://github.com/ArbitrumFoundation/governance/pull/251
A simulation can be run using the code from https://github.com/ArbitrumFoundation/governance-seatbelt/pull/23
The current election system is designed to take into account the unshielded nature of votes. It is important that you know the current running amount of votes since particular thresholds elect different individuals and allow delegates to strategically use their vote.
That said, the wider overall election system would need to be thought through instead of just adding shielded voting to the current system.
The current election system is designed to take into account the unshielded nature of votes. It is important that you know the current running amount of votes since particular thresholds elect different individuals and allow delegates to strategically use their vote.
That said, the wider overall election system would need to be thought through instead of just adding shielded voting to the current system.
On a separate note, current systems that allow for zero knowledge / shielded voting haven't been deployed in production at scale yet - adopting early constructions that haven't been battle tested could put the community at risk. A16Z Crypto made a blogpost on Cicada but that for example only offers running ballot privacy, not individual voter privacy.
The security council elections are critical for the security of the Arbitrum ecosystem, and the systems used for it should be considered by the community carefully.
The work has been audited by Trail of Bits, the full audit report is available below Trail of Bits - Arbitrum Upgrades - Summary Report - Public.pdf|attachment (576.7 KB)
The proposal calldata is available in https://github.com/ArbitrumFoundation/governance/pull/251
A simulation can be run using the code from https://github.com/ArbitrumFoundation/governance-seatbelt/pull/23
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting in favor of these changes to the Security Council election process on Tally.
Although we didn't get around to making a forum post for the Snapshot vote, our rationale remains the same. The introduction of the Contender Submission stage makes the process more fair, and the requirement that candidates need to sign a message with their wallet just makes sense. Audit report looks good as well.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting in favor of these changes to the Security Council election process on Tally.
Although we didn't get around to making a forum post for the Snapshot vote, our rationale remains the same. The introduction of the Contender Submission stage makes the process more fair, and the requirement that candidates need to sign a message with their wallet just makes sense. Audit report looks good as well.
(As a side note: we're interested in exploring shielded voting onchain as solutions progress.)
The cp0x team voted in favor of this proposal. We support more competitive elections, which are represented in this change, namely equal opportunities for candidates, rather than who ran first.
We need to start by thanking you for the proposal. We, as ITU Blockchain, agree with the decision to implement a new 7-Day Contender Submission stage before the actual Nominee Selection stage with the purpose of creating a fairer environment. Furthermore, asking Security Council applicants to provide a signed message from their EOAs will be significant in terms of validation for other ArbitrumDao-governed chains. Also, it is quite valuable for the election process to be well-designed, so we support the related changes in the constitution.
On the other hand, since the election will happen in a longer timeline it will need more concentration to handle the process, so we would be happy to be informed about the subsequent changes. All rationales considered, as ITU Blockchain we will vote in favour of this proposal.
Treasure's Arbitrum Representative Council continued our support of this proposal on Tally aligned with the viewpoint previous expressed in our feedback:
Treasure's Arbitrum Representative Council continued our support of this proposal on Tally aligned with the viewpoint previous expressed in our feedback:
We are supportive of the proposed changes to the Security Council Election process and believe the changes detailed here represent a net positive benefit to the DAO. As other have suggested, we remain receptive to further investigations into alternative mechanisms aimed at enhancing the fairness and efficacy of all election procedures within the DAO for both Security Council and non-Security Council elections.
I am voting in favor of this proposal. I think the dedicated week for candidates to apply will make the Security Council Election process more fair, competitive, and accessible.
For the Tally vote, I will maintain my "For" vote as noted above. I believe the changes listed are reasonable and will enhance the election in relation to it's current form.
I will re-emphasize that I would like to see "Shuttered" voting explored on Tally for this. I think election results hidden until completion will be a benefit to this process, and if a proposal were to come forward to do so I would be in support of it.
The Savvy DeFi DAO's Arbitrum Council has voted in favor of this proposal
The introduction of shielded voting adds integrity. Additionally, a dedicated week for candidates to apply makes the process fairer, more competitive, and accessible, eliminating unfair advantages and providing more time for application finalization.
The Savvy DeFi DAO's Arbitrum Council has voted in favor of this proposal
The introduction of shielded voting adds integrity. Additionally, a dedicated week for candidates to apply makes the process fairer, more competitive, and accessible, eliminating unfair advantages and providing more time for application finalization.
Overall, these changes enhance the democratic nature of the Security Council elections, making them more equitable and transparent.
Voting in favor.
Changes make elections fairer by giving everyone enough time to apply and review the candidates.
Also +1 on shielded voting.
Voting yes.
makes total sense to have a more levelled play field for all candidates in term of exposure to all other stakeholders, especially in a selection process as important as the one of the security council.
Michigan Blockchain is voting for this proposal. We believe it is fair to introduce a nominee selection stage, as it removes an unfair advantage given to those who submit applications to the Security Council earlier. This way, we can avoid having situations like having 10 candidates for the Security Council one day and 50 candidates the next. In addition to that, it also gives more time for candidates to finalize their applications, as it removes any pressure to submit applications early.
This has been published to Tally: https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/28300903567340237987946172947371304329455149918972967618773111648600015289785
Based on Passing on Snapshot: https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x4e064bc3f7335eb5b3b998c3b21921995d43b5c3d225da53897acaf57b51e826
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting in favor of these changes to the Security Council election process on Tally.
Although we didn't get around to making a forum post for the Snapshot vote, our rationale remains the same. The introduction of the Contender Submission stage makes the process more fair, and the requirement that candidates need to sign a message with their wallet just makes sense. Audit report looks good as well.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is voting in favor of these changes to the Security Council election process on Tally.
Although we didn't get around to making a forum post for the Snapshot vote, our rationale remains the same. The introduction of the Contender Submission stage makes the process more fair, and the requirement that candidates need to sign a message with their wallet just makes sense. Audit report looks good as well.
(As a side note: we're interested in exploring shielded voting onchain as solutions progress.)
The cp0x team voted in favor of this proposal. We support more competitive elections, which are represented in this change, namely equal opportunities for candidates, rather than who ran first.
We need to start by thanking you for the proposal. We, as ITU Blockchain, agree with the decision to implement a new 7-Day Contender Submission stage before the actual Nominee Selection stage with the purpose of creating a fairer environment. Furthermore, asking Security Council applicants to provide a signed message from their EOAs will be significant in terms of validation for other ArbitrumDao-governed chains. Also, it is quite valuable for the election process to be well-designed, so we support the related changes in the constitution.
On the other hand, since the election will happen in a longer timeline it will need more concentration to handle the process, so we would be happy to be informed about the subsequent changes. All rationales considered, as ITU Blockchain we will vote in favour of this proposal.
Treasure's Arbitrum Representative Council continued our support of this proposal on Tally aligned with the viewpoint previous expressed in our feedback:
Treasure's Arbitrum Representative Council continued our support of this proposal on Tally aligned with the viewpoint previous expressed in our feedback:
We are supportive of the proposed changes to the Security Council Election process and believe the changes detailed here represent a net positive benefit to the DAO. As other have suggested, we remain receptive to further investigations into alternative mechanisms aimed at enhancing the fairness and efficacy of all election procedures within the DAO for both Security Council and non-Security Council elections.
I am voting in favor of this proposal. I think the dedicated week for candidates to apply will make the Security Council Election process more fair, competitive, and accessible.
For the Tally vote, I will maintain my "For" vote as noted above. I believe the changes listed are reasonable and will enhance the election in relation to it's current form.
I will re-emphasize that I would like to see "Shuttered" voting explored on Tally for this. I think election results hidden until completion will be a benefit to this process, and if a proposal were to come forward to do so I would be in support of it.
The Savvy DeFi DAO's Arbitrum Council has voted in favor of this proposal
The introduction of shielded voting adds integrity. Additionally, a dedicated week for candidates to apply makes the process fairer, more competitive, and accessible, eliminating unfair advantages and providing more time for application finalization.
The Savvy DeFi DAO's Arbitrum Council has voted in favor of this proposal
The introduction of shielded voting adds integrity. Additionally, a dedicated week for candidates to apply makes the process fairer, more competitive, and accessible, eliminating unfair advantages and providing more time for application finalization.
Overall, these changes enhance the democratic nature of the Security Council elections, making them more equitable and transparent.
Voting in favor.
Changes make elections fairer by giving everyone enough time to apply and review the candidates.
Also +1 on shielded voting.
Voting yes.
makes total sense to have a more levelled play field for all candidates in term of exposure to all other stakeholders, especially in a selection process as important as the one of the security council.
Michigan Blockchain is voting for this proposal. We believe it is fair to introduce a nominee selection stage, as it removes an unfair advantage given to those who submit applications to the Security Council earlier. This way, we can avoid having situations like having 10 candidates for the Security Council one day and 50 candidates the next. In addition to that, it also gives more time for candidates to finalize their applications, as it removes any pressure to submit applications early.
This has been published to Tally: https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/28300903567340237987946172947371304329455149918972967618773111648600015289785
Based on Passing on Snapshot: https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x4e064bc3f7335eb5b3b998c3b21921995d43b5c3d225da53897acaf57b51e826
This has been published to Tally: https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/28300903567340237987946172947371304329455149918972967618773111648600015289785
Based on Passing on Snapshot: https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x4e064bc3f7335eb5b3b998c3b21921995d43b5c3d225da53897acaf57b51e826
tldr; post down to L1 mainnet, updating back up to Arbitrum One, ultimate updated implementations can be found 0xd9a2e0e5d7509f0bf1b2d33884f8c1b4d4490879
Executed through 0xcf57572261c7c2bcf21ffd220ea7d1a27d40a827
{
"method": "execute",
"types": [
"address",
"bytes"
],
"inputs": [
"d9a2e0E5d7509F0BF1B2d33884F8C1b4D4490879",
"0xb147f40c"
],
"names": [
"upgrade",
"upgradeCallData"
]
}
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal.
We are supportive of the proposed changes to the Security Council Election process and believe the changes detailed here represent a net positive benefit to the DAO. As other have suggested, we remain receptive to further investigations into alternative mechanisms aimed at enhancing the fairness and efficacy of all election procedures within the DAO for both Security Council and non-Security Council elections.
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
After reviewing the proposed changes, we’ll be voting in favour of the proposal during temp-check as we agree with and support them. We would also like to express our support to @cattin idea of introducing shielded voting, especially in this election, we think this should be discussed further.
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
After reviewing the proposed changes, we’ll be voting in favour of the proposal during temp-check as we agree with and support them. We would also like to express our support to @cattin idea of introducing shielded voting, especially in this election, we think this should be discussed further.
One point we want to bring up however is that there is currently another proposal (the Security Council Improvements Proposal which we authored) that seeks to, among other things, make changes to the constitution as pointed out by @fred.
Perhaps it’s prudent to somehow combine the proposal for the on-chain vote to avoid having people vote twice for seemingly the same thing, which is changes to the constitution.
+1 to @cattin's push for shielded voting. Honestly, shielded voting should be used whenever possible, the bias of real time results is real.
But that is a separate issue, the current improvements all look great to me
Curia will vote for the proposed changes to the ArbitrumDAO Constitution and Security Council election process. Our support is based on the belief that these amendments will enhance the election system's fairness and clarity, particularly by introducing a structured timeline for candidate submissions and ensuring candidate authenticity through wallet signature requirements.
I’d be happy to chat sometime about possible paths towards supporting onchain shielded voting.
I am excited to announce that Tally will fully support the changes to the Security Council Election process proposed in this AIP. In particular, candidates will be able to apply for a Security Council position on Tally a week prior to the start date of the nominee selection stage.
Tally is honored to support onchain governance in the Arbitrum DAO, powering chain upgrades, treasury spend, and security council elections. Thank you for supporting our work. We can’t wait for you to use Tally to participate in the next Arbitrum Security Council Election!
The current election system is designed to take into account the unshielded nature of votes. It is important that you know the current running amount of votes since particular thresholds elect different individuals and allow delegates to strategically use their vote.
I posted about shielded voting but then caught this after I did... but to respond directly. I disagree with this statement. Not shielding the voting unfairly benefits individuals who get early support, as their initial votes put them towards the top of the list right away and can snowball into broader support that may otherwise not been there. This puts an element of gamesmanship to delegate voting, where supporters can vote early for their favorite candidate to get them into the upper thresholds. Or alternatively they can wait until the very end where they know exactly how their vote will affect the election.
The current election system is designed to take into account the unshielded nature of votes. It is important that you know the current running amount of votes since particular thresholds elect different individuals and allow delegates to strategically use their vote.
I posted about shielded voting but then caught this after I did... but to respond directly. I disagree with this statement. Not shielding the voting unfairly benefits individuals who get early support, as their initial votes put them towards the top of the list right away and can snowball into broader support that may otherwise not been there. This puts an element of gamesmanship to delegate voting, where supporters can vote early for their favorite candidate to get them into the upper thresholds. Or alternatively they can wait until the very end where they know exactly how their vote will affect the election.
I'll add, I also think this harms future council elections as results may not fully indicate a losing candidates true support. Resulting in them not running next time when they may be closer to election then they think.
It's unfortunate we do not have a better solution for this with on-chain voting, I'm hoping maybe this discussion can spark outreach to Tally on how something like this can be accomplished.
After consideration and review, I will be voting "For" on this AIP. I believe all the changes listed are reasonable and I appreciate the willingness to revisit past elections to continually improve the process.
That said, I do want to bring one suggestion to consideration to be added. I brought this up as part of my post about Non-Security Elections, but I think if possible this election should have results hidden until the election is completed. Without hiding results until completion, delegates are incentivized to delay and / or change their votes up to the final minutes of voting. This unfairly benefits candidates who gain early support, as delegate voting behavior may change based on who is winning at that moment and this can materially winner / loser results. It will also not give true indication of support for lesser candidates who then may not feel it’s viable to run for future positions.
We've used shielded voting on the DAO on snapshot (shutter) - so voting is only shielded during the election phase, allowing everyone to know how delegates voted once the elections are over and I think it worked well, but I understand it would be harder to implement this fully onchain + we shouldn't do something like the security council election offchain. I just think it's the type of election where, ideally, people should vote on who they actually think is best - so a combination of ranked-choice voting + shielded voting would be interesting, but again, I understand the current limitations plus implications it would have on the current process.
I definitely think that the Security Council elections need some revision, and this proposal seems to be heading in the right direction. Any thoughts on maybe pushing for shielded voting? I feel like having private votes on these types of elections might make sense since we don't want people's votes being influenced by what others decide, but I wanted to see if anyone else had a perspective on this.
These changes have been brought to a temp check on Snapshot.
This has been published to Tally: https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/proposal/28300903567340237987946172947371304329455149918972967618773111648600015289785
Based on Passing on Snapshot: https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x4e064bc3f7335eb5b3b998c3b21921995d43b5c3d225da53897acaf57b51e826
tldr; post down to L1 mainnet, updating back up to Arbitrum One, ultimate updated implementations can be found 0xd9a2e0e5d7509f0bf1b2d33884f8c1b4d4490879
Executed through 0xcf57572261c7c2bcf21ffd220ea7d1a27d40a827
{
"method": "execute",
"types": [
"address",
"bytes"
],
"inputs": [
"d9a2e0E5d7509F0BF1B2d33884F8C1b4D4490879",
"0xb147f40c"
],
"names": [
"upgrade",
"upgradeCallData"
]
}
After consideration Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal.
We are supportive of the proposed changes to the Security Council Election process and believe the changes detailed here represent a net positive benefit to the DAO. As other have suggested, we remain receptive to further investigations into alternative mechanisms aimed at enhancing the fairness and efficacy of all election procedures within the DAO for both Security Council and non-Security Council elections.
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
After reviewing the proposed changes, we’ll be voting in favour of the proposal during temp-check as we agree with and support them. We would also like to express our support to @cattin idea of introducing shielded voting, especially in this election, we think this should be discussed further.
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
After reviewing the proposed changes, we’ll be voting in favour of the proposal during temp-check as we agree with and support them. We would also like to express our support to @cattin idea of introducing shielded voting, especially in this election, we think this should be discussed further.
One point we want to bring up however is that there is currently another proposal (the Security Council Improvements Proposal which we authored) that seeks to, among other things, make changes to the constitution as pointed out by @fred.
Perhaps it’s prudent to somehow combine the proposal for the on-chain vote to avoid having people vote twice for seemingly the same thing, which is changes to the constitution.
+1 to @cattin's push for shielded voting. Honestly, shielded voting should be used whenever possible, the bias of real time results is real.
But that is a separate issue, the current improvements all look great to me
Curia will vote for the proposed changes to the ArbitrumDAO Constitution and Security Council election process. Our support is based on the belief that these amendments will enhance the election system's fairness and clarity, particularly by introducing a structured timeline for candidate submissions and ensuring candidate authenticity through wallet signature requirements.
I’d be happy to chat sometime about possible paths towards supporting onchain shielded voting.
I am excited to announce that Tally will fully support the changes to the Security Council Election process proposed in this AIP. In particular, candidates will be able to apply for a Security Council position on Tally a week prior to the start date of the nominee selection stage.
Tally is honored to support onchain governance in the Arbitrum DAO, powering chain upgrades, treasury spend, and security council elections. Thank you for supporting our work. We can’t wait for you to use Tally to participate in the next Arbitrum Security Council Election!
The current election system is designed to take into account the unshielded nature of votes. It is important that you know the current running amount of votes since particular thresholds elect different individuals and allow delegates to strategically use their vote.
I posted about shielded voting but then caught this after I did... but to respond directly. I disagree with this statement. Not shielding the voting unfairly benefits individuals who get early support, as their initial votes put them towards the top of the list right away and can snowball into broader support that may otherwise not been there. This puts an element of gamesmanship to delegate voting, where supporters can vote early for their favorite candidate to get them into the upper thresholds. Or alternatively they can wait until the very end where they know exactly how their vote will affect the election.
The current election system is designed to take into account the unshielded nature of votes. It is important that you know the current running amount of votes since particular thresholds elect different individuals and allow delegates to strategically use their vote.
I posted about shielded voting but then caught this after I did... but to respond directly. I disagree with this statement. Not shielding the voting unfairly benefits individuals who get early support, as their initial votes put them towards the top of the list right away and can snowball into broader support that may otherwise not been there. This puts an element of gamesmanship to delegate voting, where supporters can vote early for their favorite candidate to get them into the upper thresholds. Or alternatively they can wait until the very end where they know exactly how their vote will affect the election.
I'll add, I also think this harms future council elections as results may not fully indicate a losing candidates true support. Resulting in them not running next time when they may be closer to election then they think.
It's unfortunate we do not have a better solution for this with on-chain voting, I'm hoping maybe this discussion can spark outreach to Tally on how something like this can be accomplished.
After consideration and review, I will be voting "For" on this AIP. I believe all the changes listed are reasonable and I appreciate the willingness to revisit past elections to continually improve the process.
That said, I do want to bring one suggestion to consideration to be added. I brought this up as part of my post about Non-Security Elections, but I think if possible this election should have results hidden until the election is completed. Without hiding results until completion, delegates are incentivized to delay and / or change their votes up to the final minutes of voting. This unfairly benefits candidates who gain early support, as delegate voting behavior may change based on who is winning at that moment and this can materially winner / loser results. It will also not give true indication of support for lesser candidates who then may not feel it’s viable to run for future positions.
We've used shielded voting on the DAO on snapshot (shutter) - so voting is only shielded during the election phase, allowing everyone to know how delegates voted once the elections are over and I think it worked well, but I understand it would be harder to implement this fully onchain + we shouldn't do something like the security council election offchain. I just think it's the type of election where, ideally, people should vote on who they actually think is best - so a combination of ranked-choice voting + shielded voting would be interesting, but again, I understand the current limitations plus implications it would have on the current process.
I definitely think that the Security Council elections need some revision, and this proposal seems to be heading in the right direction. Any thoughts on maybe pushing for shielded voting? I feel like having private votes on these types of elections might make sense since we don't want people's votes being influenced by what others decide, but I wanted to see if anyone else had a perspective on this.
These changes have been brought to a temp check on Snapshot.