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
if you âdonât have strong opinions on either directionâ then you should really have highlighted the impact of the shielded voting experiment in Aave, which yeah, you linked, but didnât state the actual numbers. My comment wasnât 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 âoverall participation may go downâ which is very different from âwhen they tried this in Aave, overall participation went down to 15% of what it was beforeâ.
also, if youâre 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 doesnât need an onchain vote) thereâs 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, thatâs 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 itâs hard for you to argue that there isnât at least a social contract that Arbitrum DAO snapshot polls should not be shielded. yeah, thereâs nothing explicitly prohibiting any delegate (with the required voting power to post snapshot polls) to do it⌠but Iâm 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.
i voted on this proposal but i guess iâm 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 doesnât 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
4 Likes
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 donât think this is worded correctly as it stands.
I am in favour of the option to use shielding on a case by case basis.
1 Like
Voted, but keeping my decision for me for now.
If the DAO would keep shielded voting then there needs to be a new âruleâ on how rationales are being published.
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 voted âFOR Elections Onlyâ 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.
1 Like
@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?
1 Like
donât think anybody said anything about voting rationale; and also we canât 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.
1 Like
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.
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. Itâs an essential step toward maintaining the integrity of our governance process.
1 Like
Thatâs an excellent proposal. After careful consideration, Iâve 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.
Blockworks Research will vote for this proposal, in some capacity.
Weâre cautious about a massive implementation due to the participation rate concerns outlined elsewhere. Additionally, echoing JoJoâs concern, we are curious how this will effect communication/voting rationale for delegate incentives if we were to enforce this on a grand-level.
1 Like
I voted against in this proposal. Iâve always liked the transparency of in-progress Snapshot votes.
3 Likes
@olimpio thank you for voting against! and thank you for sharing you did!
We will be voting for âElections Onlyâ 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 DAOâs 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 theyâve read sticking points from both sides.
1 Like
After consideration, Treasureâs Arbitrum Representative Council (ARC) would like to share the following feedback on the proposal
We will vote FOR âElections Onlyâ to encourage more thorough vetting of proposals, reduce last-minute tactical voting, and mitigate the âbandwagonâ effect that can elevate early leaders.
In our discussions about expanding shielded voting to all proposals, we recognized both merits and drawbacks. @WintermuteGovernancesâ analysis covered most of our key perspectives, so we wonât 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.
1 Like
I voted FOR ELECTIONS ONLY. Iâve observed all three of the listed effects (bandwagon, voter apathy, and 11th hour voting) to be particularly strong in elections. Outside of elections, I donât think there is enough evidence to mandate private voting across all proposals.
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 Iâm voting in favor of âfor elections onlyâ. I feel like implementing shielded voting would only reduce participation, which is what we need to avoid.
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.