Exclusion from possible airdrop of those who don’t read the text of the proposal

Proposal:
Exclude from the list of recipients of a possible future Airdrop ALL addresses that took part in the seventh vote on the snapshot (What option will bots prefer?).

Those people who took part in this vote showed by their actions that they do not read the text for which they vote, or at least they are not familiar with the accepted governance process. Such people do more harm to the DAO than good. DAO doesn’t need members who just mindlessly push buttons.

I think it would be fair.

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

61 Likes

This is a bot trap proposal:
https://snapshot.org/#/thegurudao.eth/proposal/0x4099606ae52125cc0f581dd0f7b0a4af6e0cf59527ac5a6fae9ab36fa1f8caf8

It looks like 400+ wallets could be weeded out. Personally, I don’t have a strong opinion on airdrop eligibility. But it probably makes sense to avoid incentivizing people who aren’t aligned with DAO goals we ratified previously and who aren’t bothered to understand what they are voting for.

GuruDAO_Bootstrap_Phase_proposal___Proposal__What_option_will_bots_prefer_

37 Likes

I agree too. They have a notable share of DAO (about 4%), therefore if they are not removed, they will influence DAO decision in a bad way.

3 Likes

Simply, they vote to fulfill the airdrop eligibility conditions that’s it. they wouldn’t have another reason to stay in the DAO and vote if the airdrop wasn’t programmed.
well, I think that the airdrop is a hinge point towards a shape of a DAO it’s a reward and a filter at the same time, a reward for early adopters and a filter for airdrop hunters whether large or small so that’s why we can’t shape a strong and real DAO before we’ve been done with the airdrop.
For those who vote without bothering to read, I do not know if we will vote to exclude them or a proposal would be welcome concerning them.

2 Likes

I agree with you. Most came here for the airdrop, and many will likely leave the DAO after the airdrop. Creating a real DAO isn’t an easy goal. But the meaning of this proposal is simple - don’t reward those people who clearly show that they absolutely don’t care what they vote for and what rules apply in this DAO. No more no less.

1 Like

it is not good for who mistakely vote this proposal I think this is innocent real user so don’t think to remove this user this is not good idea.

3 Likes

Yes, I believe all should be removed because the proposal was very clear. It wasn’t a well hidden trap, just one line. Also, people who voted Yes blindly could later change it to ‘Abstain’ . So all these voters, who could not bother to understand one line, do you think they will be comprehending other proposals which are few paragraphs? Hence in my opinion they don’t add value in governance.

1 Like

Agree, obviously.
Those votes made by bots I think. Or people who are useless. Why do we need them in DAO?

1 Like

GM, I will try to convey a position ‘from the other side’. I voted that snapshot and answered ‘yes’ because had literally read just the header of the page missed the 2nd sentence below. It may seem kinda silly, to some extend sure. Perhaps I was distracted by another voting that day and literally answered simple question ‘what answer bots prefer […]’.
Yes, you may think these actions should have consequences and such persons like me aren’t worthy to be DAO members. But I ask you wheter this ‘witch hunt’ is too much maniacal prosecution with these traps? If the true purpose of this snapshot is to detect bots’ votes so couldn’t you give a second chance for careless fools like me? Let it be another one voting or some form of appliance of exclusion from a hit list.

14 Likes

While true that people who mindlessly click buttons aren’t particularly desirable in a DAO, the majority of these people aren’t bots, just not smart. What exactly is gained by removing their addresses?

I think the witch-hunt is more damaging than giving tokens to foolish people.

12 Likes

I agree with you but I think we should have more information to confirm that that testing vote will not affect to voting activities joining rate. I did not vote, but at first time seeing the post, I used to think that if it affect my result if I do not vote. More information or special option is better to get everyone informed.

2 Likes

Do you want to clarify this temperature check a little bit:

Exclusion from the airdrop of those who don’t read the text of the proposal =>
Exclusion from possible airdrop of those who don’t read the text of the proposal

Exclude from the list of recipients of a possible future Airdrop ALL addresses that took part in the seventh vote on the snapshot (What option will bots prefer?). =>
Exclude from the list of recipients of a possible future Airdrop ALL addresses that took part in any bot trap vote on the snapshot (What option will bots prefer?).

7 Likes

My main issue is for the humans who arent voting on the bot traps will not voting be used against them when calculating percentage of snapshots partipcated for instance me personally before the last snapshot i had voted 6/10 votes meaning i would make the first 51% cut off but since i didnt vote on the last poll its not 6/11 votes and my participation percentage drops to 54% does this example highlight my issue? What if not voting on these bot traps excludes some people for barely missing the cut off?

4 Likes

So funny a proposal! Did you understand voting? Why does voting against you cteate enmity? Why voting at the first instances if not for diverse opinions. The model of this DAO is the first of it kind and it stand to have many upgraded version. I will be the unfairest

3 Likes

Absolutely yes to this proposal
Its obviously should be done!!!
DAO doesn’t need members who just mindlessly push buttons!!!

2 Likes

i think this not good for who innocent voter who don’t know about this proposal and get wrong vote we excluded because of one wrong vote this is not fair.

1 Like

Imo, the ones voting abstain should not be made ineligible (I didn’t vote, but regardless). just filling in some extra characters here

Personally I’m against. At least as it is currently written.

I took part of one of the vote, and i voted abstain. The vote was note very clear. It made sense to not vote YES. People who voted NO or Abstain probably did it because it was not very clear and thinking that NO or abstain was like voting against this proposal. At least people where not bots, voting for the first option, and they read the text.

Also a lot of members asked on discord. If NO or ABSTAIN would be ok. So they clearly read the proposal and voted accordingly. But nobody answered clearly ! If things are not clear you can’t blame people …

4 Likes

Would be funny if same bot wallets and people who cant read will vote “Yes” in voting on snapshot) Shooting themselves

1)we should straight away exclude all the people that took part in both the proposal-bot trap (not in a single one ) as there are some people who didn’t understand the first bot trap and made the mistake(based on the discussion in discord) but later they corrected and didn’t vote on the second bot trap.

2)we can also investigate all the wallets that have only voted on the second bot trap as these people might transfer their GURU NFT to another wallet and start voting from there.

2 Likes