Update the DAO Voting Procedures Off-Chain Process

The goal of this temperature check is just to start a conversation among DAO members regarding the specifics that may be lacking for the off-chain part of the DAO Voting Procedures. It should be noted that the on-chain voting timeline is currently set to 5 days and is specified by Smart Contract. Below are three topics for discussion regarding the off-chain Temp Check and Temp Check Polling process.

1. Timeline guidance for the off-chain proposal discussion and polling process

As you can see the Indigo Paper is vague with regard to the length of time necessary for a proposal to undergo discussion and the length of time a poll should be open for voting before moving on-chain. Historically proposals in the forum have been discussed for a minimum 2 days as a Temp Check Discussion and 5 days as a Temp Check Poll. The concern is that without specifics outlined by the DAO, a forum user could post a discussion and poll for only 24 hours and quickly move it on-chain for voting without giving ample time for others to become aware of the proposal and weigh in on the discussion.

2. Timeline guidance for different types of proposals

The DAO can decide if proposals should have different timeline requirements for different types of proposals. In recent months many have raised concerns over proposals that update an iAssets MCR which can immediately put the health of users CDPs at risk. MCR may change to LR and MR in V2 but this sort of change could have a longer off-chain proposal process if the DAO feels it should be slower so users are not caught off guard.

3. Bot influenced off-chain polls

The off chain voting process takes place using the forum and polling features of Discourse and there is the possibility that bots could be used to sway the polling part of the off-chain process. Currently a proposal must pass the off-chain polling process in order to move on-chain and it is possible that bots could be used to create user accounts in order to flood the poll with no-votes causing a proposal to fail even if the majority of the DAO was in favor.

In conclusion the DAO is also encouraged to read through the Indigo DAO Constitution which describes in more detail the governance proposal process. If the DAO decides to make changes to the off-chain proposal and voting procedures it may be necessary to update the Indigo DAO Constitution to reflect those changes. These discussion topics may need to be proposed separately and at different times in the future but the idea is just to get the conversation started and see where it goes.

Indigo DAO Constitution


Thanks for bringing this up, its been a while since we looked at this and its about time. The temp check discussions can be off chain but we should strive for the temp check polls to be on chain. Would be ideal to embed in the gov section of the dapp if its something we can ask the labs about. For now I would suggest modifying the TC discussion to a set days as well as the TC Poll. Not sure the best answer but minimum of 3 days for the discussion and 4-5 days for polling.


Thanks @Spuds for kicking off this conversation. All good topics that the DAO should consider since good governance is a key to protocol support and user comfort / confidence. Here are some of my thoughts on the points you raise, all of which are worthy of discussion:

  1. As to item 1, I would say more that the Indigo Paper gives the author(s) of the temp check flexibility in managing the conversation that they started. The Labs Team felt that an artificial / centralized restriction on how long a TC discussion could carry on was not needed at the start and it was suitable to leave it to the authors to decide. I still think that it is useful to let the authors have some control and I have not seen that control abused to date. A short TC discussion period can be appropriate where a matter is urgent, and the Poll step is intended to ensure that no poorly-reasoned or rushed TC can get to the Proposal stage easily. That said, now that we have had 16 months and 20+ passed Proposals, if DAO put some timelines on minimum and maximum TC discussion periods, I think that would not detract too much from the TC discussion phase.

  2. On point 2, these timelines are intended to be adjustable by the DAO. To some degree it is up to the authors to be mindful of the impact of their TC/Poll/Proposal on the community and to proceed at a pace that respects everyone in the community. And I think that has happened to date, but understand the concern that users engaging with the Protocol may want more certainty that an MCR cannot change quickly. So it would not be unprecedented or contrary to the Indigo DAO structure to put some more specific time limits on types of proposals. However, given the Labs’ teams’ focus on V2 and the changes coming with V2, I agree with your point in the final paragraph that this particular parameter is better addressed later (after V2).

  3. Finally, there are a lot of options in how to structure a DAO and certainly there are on-chain options that would address the risk of bots well (given the assumed need to connect a wallet with the protocol’s token). However, another option within Discourse/Forum is to institute 2FA for all accounts. While not entirely preventing bot action, 2FA can be very effective. The Poll step can also evolve to a more simple ‘Who is in Favor’ step which may help differentiate it more from a Proposal vote. Bottom line for me is that I would rather implement 2FA first before considering more substantial changes (e.g., eliminating any off-chain process; combining the TC and Poll steps into one; or having an on-chain Poll that will look and feel a lot like voting on a Proposal, which could in turn confuse users). If we decide to do a major revamp of governance - and there are a lot of options - likely we will need to have the Foundation retain Labs or someone else to do that work as it could be substantial.

Happy to talk more. Thanks again for getting this conversation rolling.


That is a valid point about bots on the offchain side.

Wonder if doing something simple like utilizing discord roles for voting to verify ownership would help prevent some of that.

Maybe you have to hold 100 indy to participate in off chain voting? Catalyst requires 500 ada so it should be semi familiar for everyone in the ecosystem

1 Like