Ok, so for the conviction voting params, I do agree with the general sensation that things are passing a shade too fast for my liking. Sometimes I am just surprised by proposals passing. I think making them a bit more conservative makes sense, but the new proposal live in the garden seems to make it take nearly double the GIV to pass proposals (in comparison to the old params).
I’m particularly interested in proposals around the $30k range because it seems that most big conference sponsorships & development proposals cost that amount roughly. ETHBarcelona & the smart contract audit are two good examples.
GIV price today is about $0.10, so $30k would be 300k GIV.
Aside from Griff, our top token holders with voting power in the garden have around 200k GIV each liquid.
Right now, the actual GIVgarden has:
Common Pool: 54,896,368.42 GIV
Effective Supply: 4,798,042 GIV
I used these params to test scenarios in the commons configuration dashboard, you can play with it here.
I think increasing the number of tokens required to pass a $30k proposal in 2 weeks by about 25% feels good. I don’t want to make things TOO hard to pass, and with bear market and the GIV token price declining, it is already getting harder to pass proposal of that side.
Spending Limit: 1.2%
Min Conviction: 7%
Conviction Growth: 8 days
For two weeks, this looks like:
In comparison to our setting as they are now:
It would take 8 regular GIV whales, in comparison to 6 to pass a $30k proposal in 2 weeks.
$10k, $5k proposals take about 100k GIV more on each to pass the proposal in 2 weeks.
I think since our biggest contributors have around 200k each in the garden, and smaller but active contributors have something like 50k each… these seem like “goldilocks” adjustments.
I put a bunch of screenshots comparing this proposal w/ Mitch’s and the original here
Mitch’s proposal may still pass in the Garden, but I spent the time working on this already, so thought I’d just post/share to get feedback.