We are in favor of Responsible voting. Shoutout to JoJo for coining this term but overall, this is what we see the most across the other Defi protocols we are involved in. Specifically, this allows for situations where you can still represent the best interests of your delegators while not solely voting for yourself.
In the strict no self-voting policy, let’s say there’s two parties A and B as the only two voters and delegates in a ecosystem. A has 1 vote while B has 99; let’s say B is much more trusted and 99% of the delegators believe in them more. Under a strict no self voting policy, A would have to vote for B and vice versa, allowing A to win when realistically this shouldn’t be the case. Of course this is a tiny pigeon hole view into this concept, but the point is that a reason a delegate has more voting power means that a proportionally more of the ARB token holders trust this delegate more, hence, it’s counterintuitive for none of these votes to be able to be counted towards themselves.
I voted for Disclosure Policy, Responsible Voting policy. I believe this combo gives enough transparency and flexibility for us to act as a delegate (meaning we have “invested” VP) and to disclose any COI that may appear as a result of our other professional commitments.
“Strict Self-Voting Policy” is my favorite. This approach ensures that delegates or proposal authors abstain from voting in situations where they have a conflict of interest, thereby promoting transparency, fairness, and ethical behavior within the DAO. Adopting this policy will help to prevent any potential self-enrichment or bias, ultimately leading to more trustworthy governance.
We are voting FOR the “Disclosure Policy” because it offers a straightforward and effective approach to managing conflicts of interest within the DAO. Transparency is essential for maintaining trust, and this policy will help ensure that all potential conflicts are disclosed and addressed appropriately. We believe this is a crucial step in aligning the DAO’s interests with those of its participants while preserving the integrity of the decision-making process.
I voted FOR: Strict Self-Voting Policy. It’s a standard practice is well-run organizations to avoid conflicts of interest. If a high-quality DAO proposal can’t pass because there are too many conflicts, that means our delegate base isn’t diverse enough.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “FOR: Responsible Voting Policy and FOR: Disclosure Policy” on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
Rationale
Thanks @Entropy for bringing this topic back into the discussion.
In addition to the examples mentioned above, we also want to emphasize the importance of ensuring the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest (COIs) by members of Councils, Committees, and other gov positions. For instance, if I am a member of the LTIPP Council and have potential COIs with certain protocols, it is expected that I should disclose such situations before any vote is taken.
Sounds interesting. If a code of conduct is approved, it would make sense for the program to only accept delegates who agree to abide by what the DAO has voted on. This could be seen as a non-negotiable condition for participating in the DIP. In the event of a potential violation, the DAO could decide via Snapshot vote whether a delegate has breached the code of conduct and, consequently, whether they should lose the right—either temporarily or permanently—to participate in the DIP.
That being said, we welcome the idea of establishing a code of conduct that includes guidelines on disclosing conflicts of interest (COI) and implementing a responsible voting policy. As mentioned earlier, disclosing COIs is ethically sound from our perspective. While we already observe responsible voting practices in action, formalizing it in a future code of conduct could add clarity and consistency.
However, we have reservations about adopting a strict self-voting policy, as it could restrict both the delegate’s and their delegators’ freedom to vote in the best interest of the DAO.
To be honest, I’ve seen honest efforts in the past from some committees to disclose potential conflicts of interest and even abstain from voting when delegates or participants are directly involved.
While there may not be a strict manual to follow, I agree with implementing this policy to prevent future issues. It’s also a good practice for this organization.
Voting to approve all three, as I believe the DAO needs to institute some type of uniform policy regarding COIs & Self-Voting Policies.
As the conversation evolves, I’m personally torn between the Responsible Voting Policy and the Strict Self-Voting Policy. I think for a lot of cases the Stricter policy would be best but I acknowledge there are some situations where voting for yourself isn’t as harmful as others. Similar to shielded voting poll, it may be a good opportunity for a hybrid system depending on the type of vote. I’d have to think on it more…
All said, at a minimum I believe some type of action needs to be taken. It would be a better look for the DAO then the current policy (or lack thereof).
We vote FOR: Disclosure Policy and FOR: Responsible Voting Policy.
No doubt the DAO should implement a disclosure policy at least. On top of that, we believe the Responsible Voting Policy is best suited for the current DAO voting situation as we see it working well in the Optimism for some of its election votings. As Frisson said, ideally the DAO proposals should be passed even with abstains from delegates who have conflicts with them, but practically it’s too early to implement Strict Self-Voting Policy especially for elections.
We’re voting FOR the “Disclosure and Transparency Policy.” It’s a solid middle ground that doesn’t tie our hands but still ups our game. By making folks disclose potential conflicts, we’re keeping things open without going overboard. It’s practical, doable, and should help build trust without causing a headache to enforce.
We are voting FORDisclosure and Transparency Policy brought forward as a first step towards a comprehensive COI and self-voting policy.
We believe that what matters is incentivizing delegates to vote for the best proposals and applications and not on the least optimal due to COI.
Starting with a disclosure policy is a first step towards enforcing similar best standard practices in other industries and upholding Arbitrum delegates to a higher standard.
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 have voted FOR the proposal and have opted for a Disclosure Policy and Responsible Voting.
We feel that having clear rules will be helpful because everyone can be on the same page regarding expected behavior. In addition, having a voted policy will help us manage potential conflicts in the future, should they arise.
Having said that, we’d like to note that in our opinion establishing clear, concise, and strict rules of conduct is very challenging, especially if they’re supposed to be self-declarative and there’s no straightforward way to enforce them.
We think the most important thing is to work on creating a culture of transparency by default, acting in the best interest of the ecosystem, and avoiding any direct self-dealing situations. Just being a good player in the space. We hope that the codification of these principles will also help in understanding what it means in practice.
We would also like to point out that such a policy cannot be set in stone, it needs to be an actively maintained document and we should state who is responsible for its maintenance. It might be also helpful to clearly define who should serve as an arbiter in case of conflicting interpretation of these policies in concrete particular cases. Arbitrum Foundation seems like an obvious candidate for both roles, but we are open to exploring alternatives.
DAOplomated voted in favor of creating a strict self-voting policy.
Creating COI and self-voting policies brings more structure to the DAO so we were glad to see this. We were in favor of a strict self-voting policy as we believe delegates should abstain from voting in favor of proposals they have a direct attachment to/proposals that directly benefit them.
As ITU Blockchain delegation team, we believe Disclosure & Transparency and Responsible Voting are critical for maintaining DAO integrity and fairness.
The absence of a formal policy on self-voting and conflicts of interest poses significant risks, particularly when delegates can vote in ways that benefit themselves or their affiliated companies. We have advocated for these policies to ensure that the DAO operates transparently and professionally. Despite the challenges of implementing these policies, they are essential for its long-term health. To be accountable, delegates must openly disclose their conflicts of interest while still participating in voting. While self-voting is allowed, Responsible Voting must be balanced by voting for other candidates, reducing the risk of biased decisions.
For these reasons, we chose the two options stated that will foster an equitable, transparent, and successful environment for the DAO.
gm all I voted to support the
Disclosure Policy, and
Responsible Voting Policy
as I believe they are reasonable for the type of organization we want to create.
This is the first step towards more transparency and accountability in the system.
With this being an approval vote, delegates were able to select multiple options. Both the Disclosure Policy and Responsible Voting Policy achieved greater than 50% support.
As a reminder, the purpose of this proposal was to gather sentiment; therefore, no policy is being implemented as a result of this vote. Our team is actively working on a larger delegate code of conduct which we’re aiming to have ready by mid-September. The results from this sentiment check and opinions expressed in this forum thread will be taken into account. In the proposal we will seek to refine the wording/language surrounding COI, the term “close associate”, and responsible voting, as well as outlining a process for handling breaches.
Instituting policies surrounding COI and self-voting is very important. We therefore voted for incorporating the Responsible Voting Policy so that delegates cannot outright vote themselves into particular positions in an unfavorable manner. Every DAO with committees and programs where managers are elected should have a socially-unified system where individuals are held liable for their decisions, even if there isn’t a precise legally enforceable mechanism present.
