Edits July 25
This proposal aims to kickstart a conversation around the adoption of Shutter’s shielded voting as a default for Snapshot temperature checks. Shielded voting encrypts votes during the voting period and decrypts them only after the vote closes, mitigating bandwagon effects, voter apathy, and last-minute strategic voting. A Snapshot vote to gauge the DAO's sentiment will be posted on Thursday, August 8th. Please note, this is an actual temperature check, just to gauge the DAO’s opinion on the subject.
Shutter’s shielded voting differs slightly from a traditional secret ballot where voter’s identity and selection are kept anonymous. In this case, votes are encrypted during the voting period and are decrypted only after the vote closes. Put more simply, during the voting process, a voter’s position is private, and after the vote, positions are made public. You can see who voted, but not their choice or the total VP per option, until the poll has closed (to clarify any confusion please see the demo linked below). Shutter’s shielded voting on Snapshot has been live for over 2 years now and additional details about the implementation can be found on their blog. A live demo of shielded voting can be found on Snapshot.
Other DAOs have run experiments with shielded voting in the past. Results from a 2-month trail period in Aave DAO can be found here. It is important to note that the majority of Aave DAO's proposals are related to protocols parameters, which require more specific knowledge sets on risk & economics. Therefore, it's not immediately clear how directly the results from Aave DAO can be compared to Arbitrum DAO.
In the 19th century, most western democracies transitioned from public to private voting methods in elections primarily to reduce voter coercion. While voter coercion is not a widespread issue in the onchain governance space, public votes are susceptible to a few other negative phenomenons:
Bandwagon Effect: Voters without a strong opinion tend to go with the current majority opinion. With shielded voting, no one can see how the vote is progressing, thus preventing delegates from being persuaded simply by popular choice.
Voter Apathy: On the flipside, when those in a minority opinion see that their vote no longer impacts the results of either an election or decisions, they may choose not to vote at all. This can be due to feelings that their vote doesn't matter or that strategically it is not worth the social capital to publicly dissent against the majority.
11th Hour Voting: With public voting there is an inherent information mismatch, as the last voter has much more available information to act on than the first voter. Currently, there is a strong incentive to wait until the last possible minute to vote. In some instances this is benevolent behavior as large delegates may not want to indirectly create a bandwagon effect, but other times it can be seen as borderline misbehavior when a late vote is used to strategically create an outcome.
To clarify, we are not arguing that Arbitrum DAO is currently suffering from these effects, but they are each possible with the current public system. There are also downsides to private voting that we'd like to highlight:
In general though, Shutter’s shielded voting allows Arbitrum DAO to remain consistent with practice in liberal democracies that votes taken by elected officials (delegates in this case) are publicized so that citizens can judge voting records. Since it addresses many of the aforementioned concerns with public voting methods, Entropy felt it was a worthwhile conversation to bring to the DAO.
Given there are some advantages in certain scenarios to private votes for temperature checks, Entropy Advisors is kickstarting this conversation by posing the following question:
Should Arbitrum DAO default to using shielded voting for Snapshot votes?
There will be 4 Voting Choices:
It is our recommendation that proposal authors still be granted the ability to include reasoning for if a vote should be public instead of shielded. If properly justified, we see no reason to force all Snapshot votes to be shielded (at the DAO’s discretion).
A Snapshot poll will be posted on August 8th to gauge the DAO’s overall sentiment and allow for ample conversation beforehand.
Additional proposals to follow will include temperature checks for COI policy, delegate code of conduct, and other ideas to improve the DAO’s operational processes. If the vote passes, shielded voting will be incorporated along with the other aforementioned ideas that pass a temp check into a larger proposal. This proposal will look to codify all of the DAO’s new processes into a socially enforceable proposal. After a trial period of the more grandiose unified proposal around DAO Operations, we hope to eventually implement the ideas that have worked best into the Constitution.
It is important to note, that delegates are already free to post shielded votes. In the case that shielded voting is favored by the DAO, more shielded votes are encouraged while this larger proposal is being worked on.
There is no cost to the DAO as shielded voting is already available to all DAOs on Snapshot.
Edits July 25
This proposal aims to kickstart a conversation around the adoption of Shutter’s shielded voting as a default for Snapshot temperature checks. Shielded voting encrypts votes during the voting period and decrypts them only after the vote closes, mitigating bandwagon effects, voter apathy, and last-minute strategic voting. A Snapshot vote to gauge the DAO's sentiment will be posted on Thursday, August 8th. Please note, this is an actual temperature check, just to gauge the DAO’s opinion on the subject.
Shutter’s shielded voting differs slightly from a traditional secret ballot where voter’s identity and selection are kept anonymous. In this case, votes are encrypted during the voting period and are decrypted only after the vote closes. Put more simply, during the voting process, a voter’s position is private, and after the vote, positions are made public. You can see who voted, but not their choice or the total VP per option, until the poll has closed (to clarify any confusion please see the demo linked below). Shutter’s shielded voting on Snapshot has been live for over 2 years now and additional details about the implementation can be found on their blog. A live demo of shielded voting can be found on Snapshot.
Other DAOs have run experiments with shielded voting in the past. Results from a 2-month trail period in Aave DAO can be found here. It is important to note that the majority of Aave DAO's proposals are related to protocols parameters, which require more specific knowledge sets on risk & economics. Therefore, it's not immediately clear how directly the results from Aave DAO can be compared to Arbitrum DAO.
In the 19th century, most western democracies transitioned from public to private voting methods in elections primarily to reduce voter coercion. While voter coercion is not a widespread issue in the onchain governance space, public votes are susceptible to a few other negative phenomenons:
Bandwagon Effect: Voters without a strong opinion tend to go with the current majority opinion. With shielded voting, no one can see how the vote is progressing, thus preventing delegates from being persuaded simply by popular choice.
Voter Apathy: On the flipside, when those in a minority opinion see that their vote no longer impacts the results of either an election or decisions, they may choose not to vote at all. This can be due to feelings that their vote doesn't matter or that strategically it is not worth the social capital to publicly dissent against the majority.
11th Hour Voting: With public voting there is an inherent information mismatch, as the last voter has much more available information to act on than the first voter. Currently, there is a strong incentive to wait until the last possible minute to vote. In some instances this is benevolent behavior as large delegates may not want to indirectly create a bandwagon effect, but other times it can be seen as borderline misbehavior when a late vote is used to strategically create an outcome.
To clarify, we are not arguing that Arbitrum DAO is currently suffering from these effects, but they are each possible with the current public system. There are also downsides to private voting that we'd like to highlight:
In general though, Shutter’s shielded voting allows Arbitrum DAO to remain consistent with practice in liberal democracies that votes taken by elected officials (delegates in this case) are publicized so that citizens can judge voting records. Since it addresses many of the aforementioned concerns with public voting methods, Entropy felt it was a worthwhile conversation to bring to the DAO.
Given there are some advantages in certain scenarios to private votes for temperature checks, Entropy Advisors is kickstarting this conversation by posing the following question:
Should Arbitrum DAO default to using shielded voting for Snapshot votes?
There will be 4 Voting Choices:
It is our recommendation that proposal authors still be granted the ability to include reasoning for if a vote should be public instead of shielded. If properly justified, we see no reason to force all Snapshot votes to be shielded (at the DAO’s discretion).
A Snapshot poll will be posted on August 8th to gauge the DAO’s overall sentiment and allow for ample conversation beforehand.
Additional proposals to follow will include temperature checks for COI policy, delegate code of conduct, and other ideas to improve the DAO’s operational processes. If the vote passes, shielded voting will be incorporated along with the other aforementioned ideas that pass a temp check into a larger proposal. This proposal will look to codify all of the DAO’s new processes into a socially enforceable proposal. After a trial period of the more grandiose unified proposal around DAO Operations, we hope to eventually implement the ideas that have worked best into the Constitution.
It is important to note, that delegates are already free to post shielded votes. In the case that shielded voting is favored by the DAO, more shielded votes are encouraged while this larger proposal is being worked on.
There is no cost to the DAO as shielded voting is already available to all DAOs on Snapshot.
shielding can be good for certain scenarios, but it should not be a standard for every vote. at best, it should be an option when creating a new proposal.
shielding can be good for certain scenarios, but it should not be a standard for every vote. at best, it should be an option when creating a new proposal.
I found out about shutter voting about 8 months ago, actually when participating in some gov workshop at eth istanbul. It sounded pretty solid to me and I was wondering about adoption etc, built small dashboard around that here: https://dune.com/kwizzles/snapshotshutter
I then had some discussions with several people, and most were against it, mostly because of potential coalitions and the inability to spot them and maybe react? maybe that changed now?
I found out about shutter voting about 8 months ago, actually when participating in some gov workshop at eth istanbul. It sounded pretty solid to me and I was wondering about adoption etc, built small dashboard around that here: https://dune.com/kwizzles/snapshotshutter
I then had some discussions with several people, and most were against it, mostly because of potential coalitions and the inability to spot them and maybe react? maybe that changed now?
Personally I think it could be beneficial to use it with a certain set of proposals. Definetly agree that an open current state of voting influences voters, and also saw that some bigger delegates vote late to avoid that.
Hey!
Luis here from Shutter, we're working with Snapshot on this shielded voting solution using threshold encryption.
Hey!
Luis here from Shutter, we're working with Snapshot on this shielded voting solution using threshold encryption.
Awesome to see Arbitrum Foundation discuss shielded voting! Snapshot and us think real-time voting results should be private per default (just like they are in real world elections) to preserve as much information symmetry as possible during the voting period. I love @Entropy's summary and rationale for this, nothing substantial to add from our side!
But happy to answer any questions or hop on a call to discuss the upsides, trade-offs and implementation!
I found out about shutter voting about 8 months ago, actually when participating in some gov workshop at eth istanbul. It sounded pretty solid to me and I was wondering about adoption etc, built small dashboard around that here: https://dune.com/kwizzles/snapshotshutter
I then had some discussions with several people, and most were against it, mostly because of potential coalitions and the inability to spot them and maybe react? maybe that changed now?
I found out about shutter voting about 8 months ago, actually when participating in some gov workshop at eth istanbul. It sounded pretty solid to me and I was wondering about adoption etc, built small dashboard around that here: https://dune.com/kwizzles/snapshotshutter
I then had some discussions with several people, and most were against it, mostly because of potential coalitions and the inability to spot them and maybe react? maybe that changed now?
Personally I think it could be beneficial to use it with a certain set of proposals. Definetly agree that an open current state of voting influences voters, and also saw that some bigger delegates vote late to avoid that.
Hey!
Luis here from Shutter, we're working with Snapshot on this shielded voting solution using threshold encryption.
Hey!
Luis here from Shutter, we're working with Snapshot on this shielded voting solution using threshold encryption.
Awesome to see Arbitrum Foundation discuss shielded voting! Snapshot and us think real-time voting results should be private per default (just like they are in real world elections) to preserve as much information symmetry as possible during the voting period. I love @Entropy's summary and rationale for this, nothing substantial to add from our side!
But happy to answer any questions or hop on a call to discuss the upsides, trade-offs and implementation!
The results are in for the Should the DAO Default to using Shielded Voting for Snapshot Votes? off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/831
The results are in for the Should the DAO Default to using Shielded Voting for Snapshot Votes? off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/831
Shielded voting is helpful in many ways, but also makes it harder to gain essential information that fellow delegates and other voters can provide.
I think the utility makes sense for certain types of votes, but am not sure if makes sense to apply to all voting.
Voted AGAINST in the temp check.
gm, I voted to shield all voting as I think it will make voting more neutral. I am keen to see more data points and evaluate the results after the 3 pilots that Entropy will run.
Shielded voting is helpful in many ways, but also makes it harder to gain essential information that fellow delegates and other voters can provide.
I think the utility makes sense for certain types of votes, but am not sure if makes sense to apply to all voting.
Voted AGAINST in the temp check.
gm, I voted to shield all voting as I think it will make voting more neutral. I am keen to see more data points and evaluate the results after the 3 pilots that Entropy will run.
We had an in-depth discussion with the delegation team about this issue and decided to vote ‘For Elections Only’. We evaluated Shutter and realized that some of its promises could be indirectly invalidated. The fact that delegates' votes can be predicted based on their forum comments and that their votes can be tracked through Karma somewhat diminishes Shutter's impact.
However, we still support the implementation of such a system to prevent possible manipulation of election proposals. We also believe that it will encourage smaller delegates to join the DAO and thus increase their motivation.
The Shielded Voting temperature check has concluded with a total of ~162.5m VP casted and the following results:
The Shielded Voting temperature check has concluded with a total of ~162.5m VP casted and the following results:
As a reminder, the purpose of this vote was to understand the DAO’s overall sentiment on the subject and reignite a conversation. For the time being, the default for Snapshot votes will remain public and use of shielded voting will continue to be up to the proposal author on a case by case basis.
While no clear majority was obtained, 56.69% of the casted voting power was in favor of using shielded voting in some capacity. This outcome is in itself an example of the tradeoffs in private voting. Had the vote been public, it is possible that delegates who were in favor for “All Snapshot Votes” would have voted instead for “Elections Only” in order to ensure that at least one option involving shielded voting reached a clear majority. However, due to this vote being shielded, we were able to obtain a more accurate picture of how the DAO stands on the topic.
Entropy Advisors will still commit to posting our next three non-election proposals as a shielded vote. With Against being the most selected option and the topic overall being close to a 50/50 split in the DAO, we believe it will be helpful to have some additional data points before revisiting the conversation.
For proposal authors looking to make their temperature check private, in order to post a shielded vote, the voting privacy setting must be adjusted by the Foundation. This change is dependent on their team’s availability, so we recommend reaching out a few days prior and scheduling the vote to start on Thursday at 12 pm UTC.
From conversations with the Snapshot team, it has been indicated an upcoming feature will enable proposal authors to make a vote shielded without having to change the space’s settings each time.
Thank you to all the delegates who provided thoughtful rationale. This has been an informative conversation for how the DAO views shielded voting.
I chose the option "for elections only", as this the one that this tool will generate more benefits in my opinion.
Thank you for pushing this forward!
It seems like the result is that 56% Elections should be shielded, right? Does this mean all elections in the future will be Shielded?
We're voting FOR shielded voting for all Snapshot votes. Even if the Election votes will benefit the most, we think that every vote should go under a shielded voting, as we often see controversial proposals with 90% support without any rational posted by the majority of supporters. So it looks like a lot are just voting for the expected winner. Shielded voting aligns with Arbitrum's commitment to innovative governance. It could boost participation from minority voices who'd otherwise stay silent, potentially surfacing valuable contrarian views. Importantly, it maintains post-vote transparency, allowing for accountability while mitigating pre-vote strategic behaviors.
I will be voting "[Redacted]" ;)
As the topic has matured and been discussed more since I started some initial discussions months ago... I do think election only is the way to go for now. I'm glad to see this has gone to a vote.
I will be voting "[Redacted]" ;)
As the topic has matured and been discussed more since I started some initial discussions months ago... I do think election only is the way to go for now. I'm glad to see this has gone to a vote.
For elections, the issues I stated previously here (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-create-a-standardized-guideline-for-non-security-council-elections/20915) are huge problems and I think shielded voting will be a big steps towards fixing that.
For other forms of voting, I think these issues are far less damaging to the process and the positives outweigh any slight negative.
IMO it's worth a vote to see if the DAO would want just elections only shielded or not. As you noted based on this vote >50% of the DAO believes shielded elections are worth having.
Below are the reflections of the UADP:
We voted against this proposal since we see benefit in being able to see what others are deciding to vote for. Shielding votes during the voting period also means some discourse in the public forums may be suppressed. It’s important to view others’ opinions on proposals. It helps decision makers review their presumptions and question why votes are teetering towards one direction or another. Sure, there can be a bandwagon effect, but the value of signaling in our opinion shouldn’t be understated. For proposals that may see a high degree of contention, we could on an ad hoc basis run shielded elections–but the reason for doing so should be outlined on the forums before moving to a snapshot vote. We do see how shielding elections, however, can be beneficial. But for us to be comfortable with shielded elections, we need assurance that there are more robust systems and agreements around self-voting and COI.
I decided to vote “For elections only.”
While reading this proposal, I was convinced that these tools are necessary. However, I started considering the potential impact on participation rates, which could decrease if votes are shielded, as this might discourage people from sharing their rationale. This could negatively affect overall governance participation.
I decided to vote “For elections only.”
While reading this proposal, I was convinced that these tools are necessary. However, I started considering the potential impact on participation rates, which could decrease if votes are shielded, as this might discourage people from sharing their rationale. This could negatively affect overall governance participation.
However, when it comes to elections, I believe it makes sense to have shielding for determining critical profiles. It’s worth experimenting and measuring the impact.
Many delegates make decisions by reading other voters’ rationale. This doesn’t mean they simply follow others; it means they consider the perspectives of like-minded delegates to ensure they’re aware of all the details before voting.
Isn't that what this vote proved? I wouldn't think we would need to do another vote.
Over 50% voted for Shielded Elections: 36.6% voted Elections only + 20% voted for shielding all votes = 56.6% want shielded elections.
If we need another vote, then what did this vote do?
Isn't that what this vote proved? I wouldn't think we would need to do another vote.
Over 50% voted for Shielded Elections: 36.6% voted Elections only + 20% voted for shielding all votes = 56.6% want shielded elections.
If we need another vote, then what did this vote do?
We should respect the time it takes for >50 very busy delegates and 100's of community members to vote on things, and not make redundant votes.
Alex Lumley Commenting Rationale. Commenting Rationale:
I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the intent behind this proposal, especially the goal of addressing potential issues like the bandwagon effect and last-minute strategic voting. However, there are a few areas where I believe the proposal could be improved to better align with the needs and preferences of the DAO:
Alex Lumley Commenting Rationale. Commenting Rationale:
I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the intent behind this proposal, especially the goal of addressing potential issues like the bandwagon effect and last-minute strategic voting. However, there are a few areas where I believe the proposal could be improved to better align with the needs and preferences of the DAO:
Clarify the Scope and Impact: While the proposal discusses the benefits and potential downsides of shielded voting, it could be more specific about the situations where shielded voting would be most beneficial versus where transparency might be more critical. For instance, could certain types of proposals, beyond elections, also benefit from shielded voting, or would this apply too broadly and reduce overall engagement?
Address Participation Concerns: The proposal touches on the potential for decreased participation but doesn’t fully explore solutions to mitigate this risk. Consider proposing strategies to maintain or even boost engagement if shielded voting is implemented, such as encouraging more active discussion in forums or finding ways to highlight the importance of each vote regardless of its visibility during the voting process.
Incorporate Flexibility: Rather than making shielded voting the default for all Snapshot votes or elections, it might be beneficial to propose a flexible framework where the use of shielded voting can be decided on a case-by-case basis by the proposal author, with clear guidelines on when it should be considered. This would allow the DAO to benefit from shielded voting when appropriate without mandating it across the board.
Transparency on Rationale: There’s significant concern about how shielded voting could impact the sharing of voting rationales. The proposal could explore mechanisms to ensure that even with shielded voting, delegates are still encouraged or even required to share their reasoning in a transparent manner after the voting period ends.
By addressing these points, the proposal could better balance the benefits of shielded voting with the need for transparency and participation within the DAO.
See voting rationale here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/6
Following up on this question @0x_ultra, setting guidelines on posting voting rationale was not included in this temperature check. Posting one’s rationale and position while the vote is live does diminish some aspects of shielded voting, but as @JoJo mentioned, restricting a delegate’s ability to post on the forum would be difficult to enforce and it raises an interesting question on if a delegate should have the right to make their position public if they so wish.
In general, shielded voting shifts the dynamic from most information being public to private. With it implemented, delegates have greater optionality on what information they wish to make public during the voting period. As outlined there are tradeoffs with either method.
DAOplomats voted to implement shielded voting for elections only.
We were generally supportive of this idea and voted in favor of elections only so we could take this as a form of experimentation to gauge how well it works before supporting an implementation across board.
DAOplomats voted to implement shielded voting for elections only.
We were generally supportive of this idea and voted in favor of elections only so we could take this as a form of experimentation to gauge how well it works before supporting an implementation across board.
Now the results are in, and with majority in favor of shielded voting in some way, we are co-asking if elections going forward will be shielded @Entropy?
We fully support the proposed process for establishing the Step II Steering Committee. This initiative is a crucial step in ensuring the effective diversification and management of ArbitrumDAO’s treasury.
We are confident that the selected and volunteer experts will bring valuable insights to this effort. We look forward to reviewing the proposals and strategies that the working group produces, and we are excited to participate in the future discussions and voting processes.
We vote For Elections Only.
While we acknowledge the beauty of transparency of ongoing Snapshot votes, having shielded voting for elections would outweigh the benefit which encourages voters to vote on their preferred choices rather than following the current top choices.
We will vote in favor of using shielded voting for elections only. This method ensures that votes are independent and free from early influence, promoting fairness during critical elections while maintaining transparency after the voting period ends.
I believe that shielded voting can be useful in some situations. However, I think it should only be used in certain cases, like elections. This is why I'm voting in favor of "for elections only". I feel like implementing shielded voting would only reduce participation, which is what we need to avoid.
We had an in-depth discussion with the delegation team about this issue and decided to vote ‘For Elections Only’. We evaluated Shutter and realized that some of its promises could be indirectly invalidated. The fact that delegates' votes can be predicted based on their forum comments and that their votes can be tracked through Karma somewhat diminishes Shutter's impact.
However, we still support the implementation of such a system to prevent possible manipulation of election proposals. We also believe that it will encourage smaller delegates to join the DAO and thus increase their motivation.
The Shielded Voting temperature check has concluded with a total of ~162.5m VP casted and the following results:
The Shielded Voting temperature check has concluded with a total of ~162.5m VP casted and the following results:
As a reminder, the purpose of this vote was to understand the DAO’s overall sentiment on the subject and reignite a conversation. For the time being, the default for Snapshot votes will remain public and use of shielded voting will continue to be up to the proposal author on a case by case basis.
While no clear majority was obtained, 56.69% of the casted voting power was in favor of using shielded voting in some capacity. This outcome is in itself an example of the tradeoffs in private voting. Had the vote been public, it is possible that delegates who were in favor for “All Snapshot Votes” would have voted instead for “Elections Only” in order to ensure that at least one option involving shielded voting reached a clear majority. However, due to this vote being shielded, we were able to obtain a more accurate picture of how the DAO stands on the topic.
Entropy Advisors will still commit to posting our next three non-election proposals as a shielded vote. With Against being the most selected option and the topic overall being close to a 50/50 split in the DAO, we believe it will be helpful to have some additional data points before revisiting the conversation.
For proposal authors looking to make their temperature check private, in order to post a shielded vote, the voting privacy setting must be adjusted by the Foundation. This change is dependent on their team’s availability, so we recommend reaching out a few days prior and scheduling the vote to start on Thursday at 12 pm UTC.
From conversations with the Snapshot team, it has been indicated an upcoming feature will enable proposal authors to make a vote shielded without having to change the space’s settings each time.
Thank you to all the delegates who provided thoughtful rationale. This has been an informative conversation for how the DAO views shielded voting.
I chose the option "for elections only", as this the one that this tool will generate more benefits in my opinion.
Thank you for pushing this forward!
It seems like the result is that 56% Elections should be shielded, right? Does this mean all elections in the future will be Shielded?
We're voting FOR shielded voting for all Snapshot votes. Even if the Election votes will benefit the most, we think that every vote should go under a shielded voting, as we often see controversial proposals with 90% support without any rational posted by the majority of supporters. So it looks like a lot are just voting for the expected winner. Shielded voting aligns with Arbitrum's commitment to innovative governance. It could boost participation from minority voices who'd otherwise stay silent, potentially surfacing valuable contrarian views. Importantly, it maintains post-vote transparency, allowing for accountability while mitigating pre-vote strategic behaviors.
I will be voting "[Redacted]" ;)
As the topic has matured and been discussed more since I started some initial discussions months ago... I do think election only is the way to go for now. I'm glad to see this has gone to a vote.
I will be voting "[Redacted]" ;)
As the topic has matured and been discussed more since I started some initial discussions months ago... I do think election only is the way to go for now. I'm glad to see this has gone to a vote.
For elections, the issues I stated previously here (https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/rfc-create-a-standardized-guideline-for-non-security-council-elections/20915) are huge problems and I think shielded voting will be a big steps towards fixing that.
For other forms of voting, I think these issues are far less damaging to the process and the positives outweigh any slight negative.
IMO it's worth a vote to see if the DAO would want just elections only shielded or not. As you noted based on this vote >50% of the DAO believes shielded elections are worth having.
Below are the reflections of the UADP:
We voted against this proposal since we see benefit in being able to see what others are deciding to vote for. Shielding votes during the voting period also means some discourse in the public forums may be suppressed. It’s important to view others’ opinions on proposals. It helps decision makers review their presumptions and question why votes are teetering towards one direction or another. Sure, there can be a bandwagon effect, but the value of signaling in our opinion shouldn’t be understated. For proposals that may see a high degree of contention, we could on an ad hoc basis run shielded elections–but the reason for doing so should be outlined on the forums before moving to a snapshot vote. We do see how shielding elections, however, can be beneficial. But for us to be comfortable with shielded elections, we need assurance that there are more robust systems and agreements around self-voting and COI.
I decided to vote “For elections only.”
While reading this proposal, I was convinced that these tools are necessary. However, I started considering the potential impact on participation rates, which could decrease if votes are shielded, as this might discourage people from sharing their rationale. This could negatively affect overall governance participation.
I decided to vote “For elections only.”
While reading this proposal, I was convinced that these tools are necessary. However, I started considering the potential impact on participation rates, which could decrease if votes are shielded, as this might discourage people from sharing their rationale. This could negatively affect overall governance participation.
However, when it comes to elections, I believe it makes sense to have shielding for determining critical profiles. It’s worth experimenting and measuring the impact.
Many delegates make decisions by reading other voters’ rationale. This doesn’t mean they simply follow others; it means they consider the perspectives of like-minded delegates to ensure they’re aware of all the details before voting.
Isn't that what this vote proved? I wouldn't think we would need to do another vote.
Over 50% voted for Shielded Elections: 36.6% voted Elections only + 20% voted for shielding all votes = 56.6% want shielded elections.
If we need another vote, then what did this vote do?
Isn't that what this vote proved? I wouldn't think we would need to do another vote.
Over 50% voted for Shielded Elections: 36.6% voted Elections only + 20% voted for shielding all votes = 56.6% want shielded elections.
If we need another vote, then what did this vote do?
We should respect the time it takes for >50 very busy delegates and 100's of community members to vote on things, and not make redundant votes.
Alex Lumley Commenting Rationale. Commenting Rationale:
I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the intent behind this proposal, especially the goal of addressing potential issues like the bandwagon effect and last-minute strategic voting. However, there are a few areas where I believe the proposal could be improved to better align with the needs and preferences of the DAO:
Alex Lumley Commenting Rationale. Commenting Rationale:
I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the intent behind this proposal, especially the goal of addressing potential issues like the bandwagon effect and last-minute strategic voting. However, there are a few areas where I believe the proposal could be improved to better align with the needs and preferences of the DAO:
Clarify the Scope and Impact: While the proposal discusses the benefits and potential downsides of shielded voting, it could be more specific about the situations where shielded voting would be most beneficial versus where transparency might be more critical. For instance, could certain types of proposals, beyond elections, also benefit from shielded voting, or would this apply too broadly and reduce overall engagement?
Address Participation Concerns: The proposal touches on the potential for decreased participation but doesn’t fully explore solutions to mitigate this risk. Consider proposing strategies to maintain or even boost engagement if shielded voting is implemented, such as encouraging more active discussion in forums or finding ways to highlight the importance of each vote regardless of its visibility during the voting process.
Incorporate Flexibility: Rather than making shielded voting the default for all Snapshot votes or elections, it might be beneficial to propose a flexible framework where the use of shielded voting can be decided on a case-by-case basis by the proposal author, with clear guidelines on when it should be considered. This would allow the DAO to benefit from shielded voting when appropriate without mandating it across the board.
Transparency on Rationale: There’s significant concern about how shielded voting could impact the sharing of voting rationales. The proposal could explore mechanisms to ensure that even with shielded voting, delegates are still encouraged or even required to share their reasoning in a transparent manner after the voting period ends.
By addressing these points, the proposal could better balance the benefits of shielded voting with the need for transparency and participation within the DAO.
See voting rationale here: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/alex-lumley-savvy-dao-delegate-communication-thread/26147/6
Following up on this question @0x_ultra, setting guidelines on posting voting rationale was not included in this temperature check. Posting one’s rationale and position while the vote is live does diminish some aspects of shielded voting, but as @JoJo mentioned, restricting a delegate’s ability to post on the forum would be difficult to enforce and it raises an interesting question on if a delegate should have the right to make their position public if they so wish.
In general, shielded voting shifts the dynamic from most information being public to private. With it implemented, delegates have greater optionality on what information they wish to make public during the voting period. As outlined there are tradeoffs with either method.
DAOplomats voted to implement shielded voting for elections only.
We were generally supportive of this idea and voted in favor of elections only so we could take this as a form of experimentation to gauge how well it works before supporting an implementation across board.
DAOplomats voted to implement shielded voting for elections only.
We were generally supportive of this idea and voted in favor of elections only so we could take this as a form of experimentation to gauge how well it works before supporting an implementation across board.
Now the results are in, and with majority in favor of shielded voting in some way, we are co-asking if elections going forward will be shielded @Entropy?
We fully support the proposed process for establishing the Step II Steering Committee. This initiative is a crucial step in ensuring the effective diversification and management of ArbitrumDAO’s treasury.
We are confident that the selected and volunteer experts will bring valuable insights to this effort. We look forward to reviewing the proposals and strategies that the working group produces, and we are excited to participate in the future discussions and voting processes.
We vote For Elections Only.
While we acknowledge the beauty of transparency of ongoing Snapshot votes, having shielded voting for elections would outweigh the benefit which encourages voters to vote on their preferred choices rather than following the current top choices.
We will vote in favor of using shielded voting for elections only. This method ensures that votes are independent and free from early influence, promoting fairness during critical elections while maintaining transparency after the voting period ends.
I believe that shielded voting can be useful in some situations. However, I think it should only be used in certain cases, like elections. This is why I'm voting in favor of "for elections only". I feel like implementing shielded voting would only reduce participation, which is what we need to avoid.
Following up on this question @0x_ultra, setting guidelines on posting voting rationale was not included in this temperature check. Posting one’s rationale and position while the vote is live does diminish some aspects of shielded voting, but as @JoJo mentioned, restricting a delegate’s ability to post on the forum would be difficult to enforce and it raises an interesting question on if a delegate should have the right to make their position public if they so wish.
In general, shielded voting shifts the dynamic from most information being public to private. With it implemented, delegates have greater optionality on what information they wish to make public during the voting period. As outlined there are tradeoffs with either method.
@Pepperoni_Jo3 Entropy can commit to using shielded voting for our next three non-election votes to help gather data on the subject and give delegates more opportunities to assess its impact. This would apply to proposals that Entropy has either authored or co-authored, and not proposals that we are posting on behalf of others.
I voted FOR ELECTIONS ONLY. I've observed all three of the listed effects (bandwagon, voter apathy, and 11th hour voting) to be particularly strong in elections. Outside of elections, I don't think there is enough evidence to mandate private voting across all proposals.
The following 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.
We are voting to implement shielded voting for all snapshot proposals.
The following 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.
We are voting to implement shielded voting for all snapshot proposals.
We do not have strong opinions on the effects that shielded voting can have, but we’re interested in experimenting and determining its impact. Given that there’s no risk of back-room collusion associated with having shielded voting during Snapshots (given there’s no executable associated), we believe it’s worth trying out.
To avoid the discussion around a proposal dying out because delegates do not communicate their rationale as they’re voting, we encourage delegates to still participate in the forum discussion and signal their thoughts.
This may seem counterintuitive as the core feature of shielded voting is that individual votes are hidden until the very end of the voting process. However, we believe that since no one knows the intermediate results and how their individual vote affects the final result, this can improve the quality of the discussion since the only signal delegates have is the overall sentiment of the discussion in the forum.
After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We will vote FOR "Elections Only" to encourage more thorough vetting of proposals, reduce last-minute tactical voting, and mitigate the "bandwagon" effect that can elevate early leaders.
After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We will vote FOR "Elections Only" to encourage more thorough vetting of proposals, reduce last-minute tactical voting, and mitigate the "bandwagon" effect that can elevate early leaders.
In our discussions about expanding shielded voting to all proposals, we recognized both merits and drawbacks. @WintermuteGovernances' analysis covered most of our key perspectives, so we won't reiterate those points here.
Ultimately, while we acknowledged that shielded voting would alter delegate behaviour, we were uncertain about the exact nature of these changes. Therefore, we believe further experimentation is necessary before making a decision to implement shielded voting across the DAO.
As such, we would like to request that Entropy Advisor conduct their next three non-election proposals via shielded voting. This will allow us to observe the effects in practice before deciding on a broader implementation for the DAO.
@olimpio thank you for voting against! and thank you for sharing you did!
I voted against in this proposal. I've always liked the transparency of in-progress Snapshot votes.
Blockworks Research will vote for this proposal, in some capacity.
We're cautious about a massive implementation due to the participation rate concerns outlined elsewhere. Additionally, echoing JoJo's concern, we are curious how this will effect communication/voting rationale for delegate incentives if we were to enforce this on a grand-level.
That’s an excellent proposal. After careful consideration, I've decided to vote For all Snapshot votes.
I believe this approach will encourage delegates to be more engaged in the decision-making process. It will require us to review the forum, read through the comments, and consider the perspectives of fellow delegates before making our own informed decisions.
I love Shielded Voting! I support the proposal to adopt shielded voting for all votes in Arbitrum DAO. Shielded voting plays a crucial role in ensuring a more balanced and fair voting process. By encrypting votes during the voting period and only revealing them after the vote closes, shielded voting mitigates the bandwagon effect, reduces voter apathy, and discourages last-minute strategic voting. This system promotes genuine decision-making, where votes are cast based on individual convictions rather than being influenced by the majority or strategic timing. It’s an essential step toward maintaining the integrity of our governance process.
I vote For all Snapshot Votes. Shielded voting enhances governance integrity by minimizing bandwagon effects, voter apathy, and last-minute strategic voting. By keeping votes private until the end, it ensures decisions are based on genuine opinions rather than external pressures. This approach promotes more thoughtful and unbiased participation, crucial for effective and fair governance.
don't think anybody said anything about voting rationale; and also we can't enforce people to not post it in the forum.
Matter of the fact that folks should be free to post them if they want to, before or after the end of a vote.
To me, most of the impact from big voters happen in snapshot regardless, by seeing who is on the top, who is on the bottom etc.
We will be voting for 'Elections Only' largely due to wanting to encourage higher quality and fairer assessments from delegates during election processes.
Outside of elections, we are unsure if there is a clear purpose for having shielded voting for all Snapshots. Arguably the main benefit for the DAO will be the reduction in the Bandwagon Effect and we are unsure whether shielded voting actually solves Voter Apathy. Lastly, 11th Hour Voting is still likely to occur and there are better methods to deal with this e.g., decaying VP. The other main concern we had was that (and it may play into the Bandwagon Effect), visible Snapshots provide important signals and feedback about the DAO's collective preference towards proposals, voting turnout, and split decisions that might force delegates to think deeper about their voting decision.
I voted "FOR Elections Only" because it strikes a balance between transparency and privacy. Shielded voting can mitigate bandwagon effects and strategic voting in elections where these issues are most prevalent. However, maintaining public voting for other proposals ensures accountability and allows smaller delegates to voice their opinions more effectively. This approach keeps elections fair while preserving the integrity of regular Snapshot votes.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “For Elections Only” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
i voted on this proposal but i guess i'm not allowed to share that info here? or i guess i could share how i voted but then what would the shielded voting shield?
But on the plus side shielded voting eliminates my annoyance that this forum doesn't generate tiny links that can be easily pasted into snapshot votes, since it seems to have eliminated the option to post comments. sort of addition by subtraction
Voted, but keeping my decision for me for now. If the DAO would keep shielded voting then there needs to be a new "rule" on how rationales are being published.
if you “don’t have strong opinions on either direction” then you should really have highlighted the impact of the shielded voting experiment in Aave, which yeah, you linked, but didn’t state the actual numbers. My comment wasn’t so much about what link was shared, but highlighting that the risks of this proposal were not explicitly shared in your proposal.
in your proposal you mention “overall participation may go down” which is very different from “when they tried this in Aave, overall participation went down to 15% of what it was before”.
We are leaning towards for elections only. We’re not the biggest fans of shutter and feel it’s caused more confusion and annoyance in DAOs than the benefits it has offered. Overall, this could be useful, but we think only in highly politicized events elections, which we are in favor of testing out.
One key thing here is, before we're able if we want shutter to be used, we think it doesn't make sense to already use shutter on this vote, it seems as if it defeats the purpose a little. Why vote if we want to use something if that's the way we decide whether we want to use it or not. i.e. this vote to decide if we want to use shutter, should be like a normal vote. Nonetheless, not a big deal, but something that's probably not good to start.
hey @Entropy I'm assuming that you were the ones publishing this snapshop poll today with the 0xb4c064f466931B8d0F637654c916E3F203c46f13 address.
I understand the goal of making this snapshot poll already a shutter vote, kinda like a demo, but that’s actually a little bit too cheeky for my liking…
hey @Entropy I'm assuming that you were the ones publishing this snapshop poll today with the 0xb4c064f466931B8d0F637654c916E3F203c46f13 address.
I understand the goal of making this snapshot poll already a shutter vote, kinda like a demo, but that’s actually a little bit too cheeky for my liking…
this violates the current governance practices in Arbitrum DAO and even worse, it kinda jumps the gun on the outcome of the vote. which is not demure at all.
also, you didn’t stated beforehand, that you were going to enable shutter voting for this specific proposal. I think that if you were intending to make this snapshot poll a shutter vote, you should have obviously made it part of the proposal itself.
Also, I’m glad you shared the link to the Aave experiment with Shutter voting in their DAO last year, but it would have been more intellectually honest to actually share the analysis of the impact of enabling shutter voting in Aave. As you can see, enabling shutter voting in Aave for 2 months, reduced governance participation to ~15% of what it was without shutter voting from 13.5k votes on average per proposal, to 2k votes on average per proposal.
These numbers are a bit hard to ignore.
and I’m sure you don’t want to have less governance participation in Arbitrum DAO as well, but proposing enabling shutter voting on snapshot polls for Arbitrum DAO is A, unenforceable (because delegates can always choose to post their votes in the forum, as they are currently doing even in this very proposal above, and nobody will be able to police that), and B, leading to less casted votes overall, and therefor, making it harder to have legitimacy for the decisions we're making in here.
Following up on this question @0x_ultra, setting guidelines on posting voting rationale was not included in this temperature check. Posting one’s rationale and position while the vote is live does diminish some aspects of shielded voting, but as @JoJo mentioned, restricting a delegate’s ability to post on the forum would be difficult to enforce and it raises an interesting question on if a delegate should have the right to make their position public if they so wish.
In general, shielded voting shifts the dynamic from most information being public to private. With it implemented, delegates have greater optionality on what information they wish to make public during the voting period. As outlined there are tradeoffs with either method.
@Pepperoni_Jo3 Entropy can commit to using shielded voting for our next three non-election votes to help gather data on the subject and give delegates more opportunities to assess its impact. This would apply to proposals that Entropy has either authored or co-authored, and not proposals that we are posting on behalf of others.
I voted FOR ELECTIONS ONLY. I've observed all three of the listed effects (bandwagon, voter apathy, and 11th hour voting) to be particularly strong in elections. Outside of elections, I don't think there is enough evidence to mandate private voting across all proposals.
The following 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.
We are voting to implement shielded voting for all snapshot proposals.
The following 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.
We are voting to implement shielded voting for all snapshot proposals.
We do not have strong opinions on the effects that shielded voting can have, but we’re interested in experimenting and determining its impact. Given that there’s no risk of back-room collusion associated with having shielded voting during Snapshots (given there’s no executable associated), we believe it’s worth trying out.
To avoid the discussion around a proposal dying out because delegates do not communicate their rationale as they’re voting, we encourage delegates to still participate in the forum discussion and signal their thoughts.
This may seem counterintuitive as the core feature of shielded voting is that individual votes are hidden until the very end of the voting process. However, we believe that since no one knows the intermediate results and how their individual vote affects the final result, this can improve the quality of the discussion since the only signal delegates have is the overall sentiment of the discussion in the forum.
After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We will vote FOR "Elections Only" to encourage more thorough vetting of proposals, reduce last-minute tactical voting, and mitigate the "bandwagon" effect that can elevate early leaders.
After consideration, Treasure’s Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We will vote FOR "Elections Only" to encourage more thorough vetting of proposals, reduce last-minute tactical voting, and mitigate the "bandwagon" effect that can elevate early leaders.
In our discussions about expanding shielded voting to all proposals, we recognized both merits and drawbacks. @WintermuteGovernances' analysis covered most of our key perspectives, so we won't reiterate those points here.
Ultimately, while we acknowledged that shielded voting would alter delegate behaviour, we were uncertain about the exact nature of these changes. Therefore, we believe further experimentation is necessary before making a decision to implement shielded voting across the DAO.
As such, we would like to request that Entropy Advisor conduct their next three non-election proposals via shielded voting. This will allow us to observe the effects in practice before deciding on a broader implementation for the DAO.
@olimpio thank you for voting against! and thank you for sharing you did!
I voted against in this proposal. I've always liked the transparency of in-progress Snapshot votes.
Blockworks Research will vote for this proposal, in some capacity.
We're cautious about a massive implementation due to the participation rate concerns outlined elsewhere. Additionally, echoing JoJo's concern, we are curious how this will effect communication/voting rationale for delegate incentives if we were to enforce this on a grand-level.
That’s an excellent proposal. After careful consideration, I've decided to vote For all Snapshot votes.
I believe this approach will encourage delegates to be more engaged in the decision-making process. It will require us to review the forum, read through the comments, and consider the perspectives of fellow delegates before making our own informed decisions.
I love Shielded Voting! I support the proposal to adopt shielded voting for all votes in Arbitrum DAO. Shielded voting plays a crucial role in ensuring a more balanced and fair voting process. By encrypting votes during the voting period and only revealing them after the vote closes, shielded voting mitigates the bandwagon effect, reduces voter apathy, and discourages last-minute strategic voting. This system promotes genuine decision-making, where votes are cast based on individual convictions rather than being influenced by the majority or strategic timing. It’s an essential step toward maintaining the integrity of our governance process.
I vote For all Snapshot Votes. Shielded voting enhances governance integrity by minimizing bandwagon effects, voter apathy, and last-minute strategic voting. By keeping votes private until the end, it ensures decisions are based on genuine opinions rather than external pressures. This approach promotes more thoughtful and unbiased participation, crucial for effective and fair governance.
don't think anybody said anything about voting rationale; and also we can't enforce people to not post it in the forum.
Matter of the fact that folks should be free to post them if they want to, before or after the end of a vote.
To me, most of the impact from big voters happen in snapshot regardless, by seeing who is on the top, who is on the bottom etc.
We will be voting for 'Elections Only' largely due to wanting to encourage higher quality and fairer assessments from delegates during election processes.
Outside of elections, we are unsure if there is a clear purpose for having shielded voting for all Snapshots. Arguably the main benefit for the DAO will be the reduction in the Bandwagon Effect and we are unsure whether shielded voting actually solves Voter Apathy. Lastly, 11th Hour Voting is still likely to occur and there are better methods to deal with this e.g., decaying VP. The other main concern we had was that (and it may play into the Bandwagon Effect), visible Snapshots provide important signals and feedback about the DAO's collective preference towards proposals, voting turnout, and split decisions that might force delegates to think deeper about their voting decision.
I voted "FOR Elections Only" because it strikes a balance between transparency and privacy. Shielded voting can mitigate bandwagon effects and strategic voting in elections where these issues are most prevalent. However, maintaining public voting for other proposals ensures accountability and allows smaller delegates to voice their opinions more effectively. This approach keeps elections fair while preserving the integrity of regular Snapshot votes.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “For Elections Only” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
i voted on this proposal but i guess i'm not allowed to share that info here? or i guess i could share how i voted but then what would the shielded voting shield?
But on the plus side shielded voting eliminates my annoyance that this forum doesn't generate tiny links that can be easily pasted into snapshot votes, since it seems to have eliminated the option to post comments. sort of addition by subtraction
Voted, but keeping my decision for me for now. If the DAO would keep shielded voting then there needs to be a new "rule" on how rationales are being published.
if you “don’t have strong opinions on either direction” then you should really have highlighted the impact of the shielded voting experiment in Aave, which yeah, you linked, but didn’t state the actual numbers. My comment wasn’t so much about what link was shared, but highlighting that the risks of this proposal were not explicitly shared in your proposal.
in your proposal you mention “overall participation may go down” which is very different from “when they tried this in Aave, overall participation went down to 15% of what it was before”.
We are leaning towards for elections only. We’re not the biggest fans of shutter and feel it’s caused more confusion and annoyance in DAOs than the benefits it has offered. Overall, this could be useful, but we think only in highly politicized events elections, which we are in favor of testing out.
One key thing here is, before we're able if we want shutter to be used, we think it doesn't make sense to already use shutter on this vote, it seems as if it defeats the purpose a little. Why vote if we want to use something if that's the way we decide whether we want to use it or not. i.e. this vote to decide if we want to use shutter, should be like a normal vote. Nonetheless, not a big deal, but something that's probably not good to start.
hey @Entropy I'm assuming that you were the ones publishing this snapshop poll today with the 0xb4c064f466931B8d0F637654c916E3F203c46f13 address.
I understand the goal of making this snapshot poll already a shutter vote, kinda like a demo, but that’s actually a little bit too cheeky for my liking…
hey @Entropy I'm assuming that you were the ones publishing this snapshop poll today with the 0xb4c064f466931B8d0F637654c916E3F203c46f13 address.
I understand the goal of making this snapshot poll already a shutter vote, kinda like a demo, but that’s actually a little bit too cheeky for my liking…
this violates the current governance practices in Arbitrum DAO and even worse, it kinda jumps the gun on the outcome of the vote. which is not demure at all.
also, you didn’t stated beforehand, that you were going to enable shutter voting for this specific proposal. I think that if you were intending to make this snapshot poll a shutter vote, you should have obviously made it part of the proposal itself.
Also, I’m glad you shared the link to the Aave experiment with Shutter voting in their DAO last year, but it would have been more intellectually honest to actually share the analysis of the impact of enabling shutter voting in Aave. As you can see, enabling shutter voting in Aave for 2 months, reduced governance participation to ~15% of what it was without shutter voting from 13.5k votes on average per proposal, to 2k votes on average per proposal.
These numbers are a bit hard to ignore.
and I’m sure you don’t want to have less governance participation in Arbitrum DAO as well, but proposing enabling shutter voting on snapshot polls for Arbitrum DAO is A, unenforceable (because delegates can always choose to post their votes in the forum, as they are currently doing even in this very proposal above, and nobody will be able to police that), and B, leading to less casted votes overall, and therefor, making it harder to have legitimacy for the decisions we're making in here.
We will be voting for 'Elections Only' largely due to wanting to encourage higher quality and fairer assessments from delegates during election processes.
Outside of elections, we are unsure if there is a clear purpose for having shielded voting for all Snapshots. Arguably the main benefit for the DAO will be the reduction in the Bandwagon Effect and we are unsure whether shielded voting actually solves Voter Apathy. Lastly, 11th Hour Voting is still likely to occur and there are better methods to deal with this e.g., decaying VP. The other main concern we had was that (and it may play into the Bandwagon Effect), visible Snapshots provide important signals and feedback about the DAO's collective preference towards proposals, voting turnout, and split decisions that might force delegates to think deeper about their voting decision.
In saying that, Shielded Voting has some nice properties like pushing delegates to spend more time in the forums to decide their voting stance which might lead to lower voter turnout, but likely increases the quality of voting decisions. Even if voting rationales are made public which we think is completely fine, delegates will end up with greater context to inform their decision as they've read sticking points from both sides.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “For Elections Only” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
SEEDGov welcomes the implementation of the shielded voting specifically for elections, as it can help mitigate the bandwagon effect, which often turns elections into popularity contests. However, we have some reservations regarding how this could impact initiatives such as ‘Should the DAO Create COI & Self Voting Policies?’. In cases where self-voting policies are adopted, shielded voting could prevent the community from knowing if a delegate has self-voted until after the vote is over. This could damage the DAO’s ability to take corrective action during the vote itself. For instance, if delegates disapprove a certain delegate's conduct, they may want the chance to shift their vote to another candidate.
On the other hand, we are cautious about extending shielded voting to all types of votes. Transparency and the sharing of rationale behind votes have proven to be valuable in guiding other delegates in their decision-making process. While shielded voting doesn't prohibit a delegate from publishing their rationale during the vote, it may reduce the incentive to do so.
That said, we view the use of shielded voting as a test, and this trial could open the door to expanding its use in the future, depending on its success.
if you “don’t have strong opinions on either direction” then you should really have highlighted the impact of the shielded voting experiment in Aave, which yeah, you linked, but didn’t state the actual numbers. My comment wasn’t so much about what link was shared, but highlighting that the risks of this proposal were not explicitly shared in your proposal.
in your proposal you mention “overall participation may go down” which is very different from “when they tried this in Aave, overall participation went down to 15% of what it was before”.
also, if you’re a neutral proposer proposing this on behalf of some other delegate, and you have a mandate to serve the Arbitrum DAO, then more the reason for you guys to explicitly highlight the risks of the aave shielded voting trial, especially before putting the proposal up to a vote on snapshot so that everybody can make a better informed decision. and since this proposal, if it passes, will go in effect in one week, (since it doesn’t need an onchain vote) there’s even more reason to share the impact it had on aave.
the reason why I think shielded voting is a bad idea is because it hides the vote reasons while the voting is happening, and as @JoJo mentioned above, that’s how most people, including most big delegates, are making their decisions in practice, by reading other voters reasons to understand why they voted the way they did, and then, decide for themselves.
i believe we should move in a direction where more voters share the reasoning for their votes, and are even more incentivized to do so, and that information is public, so that the discourse around our decisions is richer.
regarding the cheekiness of making this snapshot vote shielded, as I said, it feels like jumping the gun on the outcome of the vote.
and I believe that it’s hard for you to argue that there isn’t at least a social contract that Arbitrum DAO snapshot polls should not be shielded. yeah, there’s nothing explicitly prohibiting any delegate (with the required voting power to post snapshot polls) to do it… but I’m sure you understand how that might be jarring for voters and delegates. so yeah, it violates this social contract that has been in place since the overwhelming majority, aka, 99.34% (300 out of 302 proposals) of the snapshot polls in Arbitrum DAO were not shielded. to be even more specific, only the proposal you mentioned and this one, used shielded voting.
Very interesting topic. In my opinion where transparency is needed shielded voting should be avoided. I have mixed feelings about shielding election votes as well but the benefits are more. Supporting shielded voting for only elections
A small update, this proposal will now be moving forward to a vote next week on August 15th in order to line up with the other conversation on COI and Self-Voting.
We absolutely should be using shielded voting by default in every vote.
There is also higher participation when it is unshielded since small voters feel like the beginning of a proposal period is the only time they have to actually be noticed, since later on they just get crowded out by the large delegates
We absolutely should be using shielded voting by default in every vote.
There is also higher participation when it is unshielded since small voters feel like the beginning of a proposal period is the only time they have to actually be noticed, since later on they just get crowded out by the large delegates
This is exactly why we should be using shielded voting. The votes of others should not influence my vote, my vote should be based on my opinion about the proposal.
I can see it in my own votes (and I'm sure you can see it too if you notice). We are naturally biased by seeing the results. It's scary/hard to vote against the herd, and lazy/easy to vote with it.
Shutter unless otherwise explained why in the proposal.
Exactly.
this violates the current governance practices in Arbitrum DAO and even worse, it kinda jumps the gun on the outcome of the vote. which is not demure at all.
this violates the current governance practices in Arbitrum DAO and even worse, it kinda jumps the gun on the outcome of the vote. which is not demure at all.
Also, I’m glad you shared the link to the Aave experiment with Shutter voting in their DAO last year, but it would have been more intellectually honest to actually share the analysis
Thank you for sharing the link to the Aave experiment with Shutter voting. However, it’s worth noting that the same link is already hyperlinked within the proposal. Sharing it again doesn’t seem to add anything new to the discussion. We have also previously noted why it can't be compared 1:1 between Aave and Arbitrum governance.
Surrounding enforceability, this is discussed in great detail both in the proposal itself and in the comments above. Additionally, it is worth noting that we were asked to run this poll by delegates and don't have strong opinions in either direction. This vote is exclusively to gauge the DAO's sentiment on the subject.
I am voting against this proposal. I believe it should not be the DEFAULT as this proposal requires, it should be an option for use in sensitive cases like elections. The voting options are all about setting defaults, I don't think this is worded correctly as it stands. I am in favour of the option to use shielding on a case by case basis.
@Entropy I just have a question, how would delegates post their voting rationale in case shielded voting was implemented? I feel like this change would reduce transparency in this sense
Could rationale be made public after voting period ends?
This is a very interesting conversation that has been discussed and/or implemented in several DAOs. I like the way you touched on both the positives and the negatives. That was great!
Right now, I see this being implemented only on an election level and not covering all Snapshots (at least for now). It should help gauge how well it works for us.
This is a very interesting conversation that has been discussed and/or implemented in several DAOs. I like the way you touched on both the positives and the negatives. That was great!
Right now, I see this being implemented only on an election level and not covering all Snapshots (at least for now). It should help gauge how well it works for us.
Just a suggestion/question, would it be possible to lock a Forum topic for the period it's vote is live? This way, delegates don't drop rationales behind their vote as comments but are forced to wait for the vote to end or post in their personal delegate thread. With the latter, voters could still get a sense of who's voting what but it would require them to go through several threads.
As stated here, voting in favour for elections only.
It would definitely help allievating the "lobbying" problem, which means also newcomers in the dao might have better chances as byproduct of this. But i am not convinced about other type of voting. As we have seen, most of the discussions on certain topic, for the good or the bad, happen not really in the preliminary weeks/months but only when the vote is live. While I think this is not good, it's still better than no discussion/engagement at all, and I think shutter vote on non election snapshots would just kill the general engagement for delegates.
Thanks for kicking off the conversation. Rather than a requirement, I think of this as a change to the default setting.
Shutter unless otherwise explained why in the proposal.
Thanks for the credit!
I am in favor of using it for elections only. It is useful for larger delegates to see how small token voters are reacting to a proposal.
There is also higher participation when it is unshielded since small voters feel like the beginning of a proposal period is the only time they have to actually be noticed, since later on they just get crowded out by the large delegates
Interesting proposal. However, there are a couple of points:
I've voted for this proposal. Shielded voting enhances voter privacy, protecting members from potential coercion or vote-buying, which can lead to more genuine and independent voting outcomes. While it may reduce transparency to some extent, the benefits of safeguarding the integrity of the voting process outweigh this drawback. By prioritizing privacy, the DAO can ensure that decisions truly reflect the community's will, fostering a healthier and more resilient governance system.
Updates to the proposal based on feedback and discussion from delegates.
Thanks @Entropy for the proposal and continuous efforts to make the DAO operations better.
We generally agree with the Shielded Voting at least for elections as Devansh pointed out; small voters are likely "encouraged" to vote on the current (at the time of their voting) top selections regardless of their true preferences.
Thanks @Entropy for the proposal and continuous efforts to make the DAO operations better.
We generally agree with the Shielded Voting at least for elections as Devansh pointed out; small voters are likely "encouraged" to vote on the current (at the time of their voting) top selections regardless of their true preferences.
Just a suggestion/question, would it be possible to lock a Forum topic for the period it’s vote is live?
This is very interesting but it would be overkill and a little distractions for some delegates' workflows (e.g. voting done with a link to their rationales that is currently required for the delegate incentives program). At least, the sum of votings being not visible should be good enough to address the current main issue.
This is an interesting topic and I would like to add a few things:
Appreciate linking this, my thoughts are in there but the tl;dr is I think very strongly we should have shielded voting for at least any election. There is too much opportunity for gamification of voting without it. Below is what I wrote about it that I think still applies today.
Issue #2
Elections ran without the “Shutter” feature allow for voters to see election results before the election is over. 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.
Proposed Solution #2
Mandate all elections must be run with the “Shutter” feature if on Snapshot (or equivalent if we ever more to another platform)
this is a great idea.
Would like to point out that a discussion on this topic, carried by @Bob-Rossi and to which i also contributed, was posted several months ago, and could be useful here as reference.
Hey, we have been doing a poc for this at the Aave DAO probably more than a year ago. Basically with the same reasons @Entropy has mentioned. Many DAO member wanted to give it a try for nearly a month if i remember correct. The result was that nothing had changed. People still voted simply in favour of the protocol (do not create any harm) or based on their opinion which only the voter knows.
Being that said, votings are now again transparent and visible for everyone. In the end nothing has changed.
We will be voting for 'Elections Only' largely due to wanting to encourage higher quality and fairer assessments from delegates during election processes.
Outside of elections, we are unsure if there is a clear purpose for having shielded voting for all Snapshots. Arguably the main benefit for the DAO will be the reduction in the Bandwagon Effect and we are unsure whether shielded voting actually solves Voter Apathy. Lastly, 11th Hour Voting is still likely to occur and there are better methods to deal with this e.g., decaying VP. The other main concern we had was that (and it may play into the Bandwagon Effect), visible Snapshots provide important signals and feedback about the DAO's collective preference towards proposals, voting turnout, and split decisions that might force delegates to think deeper about their voting decision.
In saying that, Shielded Voting has some nice properties like pushing delegates to spend more time in the forums to decide their voting stance which might lead to lower voter turnout, but likely increases the quality of voting decisions. Even if voting rationales are made public which we think is completely fine, delegates will end up with greater context to inform their decision as they've read sticking points from both sides.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “For Elections Only” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
SEEDGov welcomes the implementation of the shielded voting specifically for elections, as it can help mitigate the bandwagon effect, which often turns elections into popularity contests. However, we have some reservations regarding how this could impact initiatives such as ‘Should the DAO Create COI & Self Voting Policies?’. In cases where self-voting policies are adopted, shielded voting could prevent the community from knowing if a delegate has self-voted until after the vote is over. This could damage the DAO’s ability to take corrective action during the vote itself. For instance, if delegates disapprove a certain delegate's conduct, they may want the chance to shift their vote to another candidate.
On the other hand, we are cautious about extending shielded voting to all types of votes. Transparency and the sharing of rationale behind votes have proven to be valuable in guiding other delegates in their decision-making process. While shielded voting doesn't prohibit a delegate from publishing their rationale during the vote, it may reduce the incentive to do so.
That said, we view the use of shielded voting as a test, and this trial could open the door to expanding its use in the future, depending on its success.
if you “don’t have strong opinions on either direction” then you should really have highlighted the impact of the shielded voting experiment in Aave, which yeah, you linked, but didn’t state the actual numbers. My comment wasn’t so much about what link was shared, but highlighting that the risks of this proposal were not explicitly shared in your proposal.
in your proposal you mention “overall participation may go down” which is very different from “when they tried this in Aave, overall participation went down to 15% of what it was before”.
also, if you’re a neutral proposer proposing this on behalf of some other delegate, and you have a mandate to serve the Arbitrum DAO, then more the reason for you guys to explicitly highlight the risks of the aave shielded voting trial, especially before putting the proposal up to a vote on snapshot so that everybody can make a better informed decision. and since this proposal, if it passes, will go in effect in one week, (since it doesn’t need an onchain vote) there’s even more reason to share the impact it had on aave.
the reason why I think shielded voting is a bad idea is because it hides the vote reasons while the voting is happening, and as @JoJo mentioned above, that’s how most people, including most big delegates, are making their decisions in practice, by reading other voters reasons to understand why they voted the way they did, and then, decide for themselves.
i believe we should move in a direction where more voters share the reasoning for their votes, and are even more incentivized to do so, and that information is public, so that the discourse around our decisions is richer.
regarding the cheekiness of making this snapshot vote shielded, as I said, it feels like jumping the gun on the outcome of the vote.
and I believe that it’s hard for you to argue that there isn’t at least a social contract that Arbitrum DAO snapshot polls should not be shielded. yeah, there’s nothing explicitly prohibiting any delegate (with the required voting power to post snapshot polls) to do it… but I’m sure you understand how that might be jarring for voters and delegates. so yeah, it violates this social contract that has been in place since the overwhelming majority, aka, 99.34% (300 out of 302 proposals) of the snapshot polls in Arbitrum DAO were not shielded. to be even more specific, only the proposal you mentioned and this one, used shielded voting.
Very interesting topic. In my opinion where transparency is needed shielded voting should be avoided. I have mixed feelings about shielding election votes as well but the benefits are more. Supporting shielded voting for only elections
A small update, this proposal will now be moving forward to a vote next week on August 15th in order to line up with the other conversation on COI and Self-Voting.
We absolutely should be using shielded voting by default in every vote.
There is also higher participation when it is unshielded since small voters feel like the beginning of a proposal period is the only time they have to actually be noticed, since later on they just get crowded out by the large delegates
We absolutely should be using shielded voting by default in every vote.
There is also higher participation when it is unshielded since small voters feel like the beginning of a proposal period is the only time they have to actually be noticed, since later on they just get crowded out by the large delegates
This is exactly why we should be using shielded voting. The votes of others should not influence my vote, my vote should be based on my opinion about the proposal.
I can see it in my own votes (and I'm sure you can see it too if you notice). We are naturally biased by seeing the results. It's scary/hard to vote against the herd, and lazy/easy to vote with it.
Shutter unless otherwise explained why in the proposal.
Exactly.
this violates the current governance practices in Arbitrum DAO and even worse, it kinda jumps the gun on the outcome of the vote. which is not demure at all.
this violates the current governance practices in Arbitrum DAO and even worse, it kinda jumps the gun on the outcome of the vote. which is not demure at all.
Also, I’m glad you shared the link to the Aave experiment with Shutter voting in their DAO last year, but it would have been more intellectually honest to actually share the analysis
Thank you for sharing the link to the Aave experiment with Shutter voting. However, it’s worth noting that the same link is already hyperlinked within the proposal. Sharing it again doesn’t seem to add anything new to the discussion. We have also previously noted why it can't be compared 1:1 between Aave and Arbitrum governance.
Surrounding enforceability, this is discussed in great detail both in the proposal itself and in the comments above. Additionally, it is worth noting that we were asked to run this poll by delegates and don't have strong opinions in either direction. This vote is exclusively to gauge the DAO's sentiment on the subject.
I am voting against this proposal. I believe it should not be the DEFAULT as this proposal requires, it should be an option for use in sensitive cases like elections. The voting options are all about setting defaults, I don't think this is worded correctly as it stands. I am in favour of the option to use shielding on a case by case basis.
@Entropy I just have a question, how would delegates post their voting rationale in case shielded voting was implemented? I feel like this change would reduce transparency in this sense
Could rationale be made public after voting period ends?
This is a very interesting conversation that has been discussed and/or implemented in several DAOs. I like the way you touched on both the positives and the negatives. That was great!
Right now, I see this being implemented only on an election level and not covering all Snapshots (at least for now). It should help gauge how well it works for us.
This is a very interesting conversation that has been discussed and/or implemented in several DAOs. I like the way you touched on both the positives and the negatives. That was great!
Right now, I see this being implemented only on an election level and not covering all Snapshots (at least for now). It should help gauge how well it works for us.
Just a suggestion/question, would it be possible to lock a Forum topic for the period it's vote is live? This way, delegates don't drop rationales behind their vote as comments but are forced to wait for the vote to end or post in their personal delegate thread. With the latter, voters could still get a sense of who's voting what but it would require them to go through several threads.
As stated here, voting in favour for elections only.
It would definitely help allievating the "lobbying" problem, which means also newcomers in the dao might have better chances as byproduct of this. But i am not convinced about other type of voting. As we have seen, most of the discussions on certain topic, for the good or the bad, happen not really in the preliminary weeks/months but only when the vote is live. While I think this is not good, it's still better than no discussion/engagement at all, and I think shutter vote on non election snapshots would just kill the general engagement for delegates.
Thanks for kicking off the conversation. Rather than a requirement, I think of this as a change to the default setting.
Shutter unless otherwise explained why in the proposal.
Thanks for the credit!
I am in favor of using it for elections only. It is useful for larger delegates to see how small token voters are reacting to a proposal.
There is also higher participation when it is unshielded since small voters feel like the beginning of a proposal period is the only time they have to actually be noticed, since later on they just get crowded out by the large delegates
Interesting proposal. However, there are a couple of points:
I've voted for this proposal. Shielded voting enhances voter privacy, protecting members from potential coercion or vote-buying, which can lead to more genuine and independent voting outcomes. While it may reduce transparency to some extent, the benefits of safeguarding the integrity of the voting process outweigh this drawback. By prioritizing privacy, the DAO can ensure that decisions truly reflect the community's will, fostering a healthier and more resilient governance system.
Updates to the proposal based on feedback and discussion from delegates.
Thanks @Entropy for the proposal and continuous efforts to make the DAO operations better.
We generally agree with the Shielded Voting at least for elections as Devansh pointed out; small voters are likely "encouraged" to vote on the current (at the time of their voting) top selections regardless of their true preferences.
Thanks @Entropy for the proposal and continuous efforts to make the DAO operations better.
We generally agree with the Shielded Voting at least for elections as Devansh pointed out; small voters are likely "encouraged" to vote on the current (at the time of their voting) top selections regardless of their true preferences.
Just a suggestion/question, would it be possible to lock a Forum topic for the period it’s vote is live?
This is very interesting but it would be overkill and a little distractions for some delegates' workflows (e.g. voting done with a link to their rationales that is currently required for the delegate incentives program). At least, the sum of votings being not visible should be good enough to address the current main issue.
This is an interesting topic and I would like to add a few things:
Appreciate linking this, my thoughts are in there but the tl;dr is I think very strongly we should have shielded voting for at least any election. There is too much opportunity for gamification of voting without it. Below is what I wrote about it that I think still applies today.
Issue #2
Elections ran without the “Shutter” feature allow for voters to see election results before the election is over. 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.
Proposed Solution #2
Mandate all elections must be run with the “Shutter” feature if on Snapshot (or equivalent if we ever more to another platform)
this is a great idea.
Would like to point out that a discussion on this topic, carried by @Bob-Rossi and to which i also contributed, was posted several months ago, and could be useful here as reference.
Hey, we have been doing a poc for this at the Aave DAO probably more than a year ago. Basically with the same reasons @Entropy has mentioned. Many DAO member wanted to give it a try for nearly a month if i remember correct. The result was that nothing had changed. People still voted simply in favour of the protocol (do not create any harm) or based on their opinion which only the voter knows.
Being that said, votings are now again transparent and visible for everyone. In the end nothing has changed.
Updates to the proposal based on feedback and discussion from delegates.
this is a great idea.
Would like to point out that a discussion on this topic, carried by @Bob-Rossi and to which i also contributed, was posted several months ago, and could be useful here as reference.
In general i would agree that shielded is needed, but I would limit this, for now, to only elections (in council, of service providers and others). I am personally not sure if we want to extend this to all voting, because technical snapshots for example do indeed benefit from a transparent vote.
Hey, we have been doing a poc for this at the Aave DAO probably more than a year ago. Basically with the same reasons @Entropy has mentioned. Many DAO member wanted to give it a try for nearly a month if i remember correct. The result was that nothing had changed. People still voted simply in favour of the protocol (do not create any harm) or based on their opinion which only the voter knows.
Being that said, votings are now again transparent and visible for everyone. In the end nothing has changed.
It would still be interesting to see how the Arbitrum DAO would behave but in my opinion a true and honest delegate has to be transparent and stand by his vote. Even if the majority would vote different.
Updates to the proposal based on feedback and discussion from delegates.
this is a great idea.
Would like to point out that a discussion on this topic, carried by @Bob-Rossi and to which i also contributed, was posted several months ago, and could be useful here as reference.
In general i would agree that shielded is needed, but I would limit this, for now, to only elections (in council, of service providers and others). I am personally not sure if we want to extend this to all voting, because technical snapshots for example do indeed benefit from a transparent vote.
Hey, we have been doing a poc for this at the Aave DAO probably more than a year ago. Basically with the same reasons @Entropy has mentioned. Many DAO member wanted to give it a try for nearly a month if i remember correct. The result was that nothing had changed. People still voted simply in favour of the protocol (do not create any harm) or based on their opinion which only the voter knows.
Being that said, votings are now again transparent and visible for everyone. In the end nothing has changed.
It would still be interesting to see how the Arbitrum DAO would behave but in my opinion a true and honest delegate has to be transparent and stand by his vote. Even if the majority would vote different.
