We vote For Elections Only.
While we acknowledge the beauty of transparency of ongoing Snapshot votes, having shielded voting for elections would outweigh the benefit which encourages voters to vote on their preferred choices rather than following the current top choices.
We fully support the proposed process for establishing the Step II Steering Committee. This initiative is a crucial step in ensuring the effective diversification and management of ArbitrumDAOâs treasury.
We are confident that the selected and volunteer experts will bring valuable insights to this effort. We look forward to reviewing the proposals and strategies that the working group produces, and we are excited to participate in the future discussions and voting processes.
Following up on this question @0x_ultra, setting guidelines on posting voting rationale was not included in this temperature check. Posting oneâs rationale and position while the vote is live does diminish some aspects of shielded voting, but as @JoJo mentioned, restricting a delegateâs ability to post on the forum would be difficult to enforce and it raises an interesting question on if a delegate should have the right to make their position public if they so wish.
In general, shielded voting shifts the dynamic from most information being public to private. With it implemented, delegates have greater optionality on what information they wish to make public during the voting period. As outlined there are tradeoffs with either method.
@Pepperoni_Jo3 Entropy can commit to using shielded voting for our next three non-election votes to help gather data on the subject and give delegates more opportunities to assess its impact. This would apply to proposals that Entropy has either authored or co-authored, and not proposals that we are posting on behalf of others.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote âFor Elections Onlyâ on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.
SEEDGov welcomes the implementation of the shielded voting specifically for elections, as it can help mitigate the bandwagon effect, which often turns elections into popularity contests. However, we have some reservations regarding how this could impact initiatives such as âShould the DAO Create COI & Self Voting Policies?â. In cases where self-voting policies are adopted, shielded voting could prevent the community from knowing if a delegate has self-voted until after the vote is over. This could damage the DAOâs ability to take corrective action during the vote itself. For instance, if delegates disapprove a certain delegateâs conduct, they may want the chance to shift their vote to another candidate.
On the other hand, we are cautious about extending shielded voting to all types of votes. Transparency and the sharing of rationale behind votes have proven to be valuable in guiding other delegates in their decision-making process. While shielded voting doesnât prohibit a delegate from publishing their rationale during the vote, it may reduce the incentive to do so.
That said, we view the use of shielded voting as a test, and this trial could open the door to expanding its use in the future, depending on its success.
The following reflects the views of L2BEATâs governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and itâs based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting to implement shielded voting for all snapshot proposals.
We do not have strong opinions on the effects that shielded voting can have, but weâre interested in experimenting and determining its impact. Given that thereâs no risk of back-room collusion associated with having shielded voting during Snapshots (given thereâs no executable associated), we believe itâs worth trying out.
To avoid the discussion around a proposal dying out because delegates do not communicate their rationale as theyâre voting, we encourage delegates to still participate in the forum discussion and signal their thoughts.
This may seem counterintuitive as the core feature of shielded voting is that individual votes are hidden until the very end of the voting process. However, we believe that since no one knows the intermediate results and how their individual vote affects the final result, this can improve the quality of the discussion since the only signal delegates have is the overall sentiment of the discussion in the forum.
I decided to vote âFor elections only.â
While reading this proposal, I was convinced that these tools are necessary. However, I started considering the potential impact on participation rates, which could decrease if votes are shielded, as this might discourage people from sharing their rationale. This could negatively affect overall governance participation.
However, when it comes to elections, I believe it makes sense to have shielding for determining critical profiles. Itâs worth experimenting and measuring the impact.
Many delegates make decisions by reading other votersâ rationale. This doesnât mean they simply follow others; it means they consider the perspectives of like-minded delegates to ensure theyâre aware of all the details before voting.
I will be voting â[Redacted]â 
As the topic has matured and been discussed more since I started some initial discussions months ago⊠I do think election only is the way to go for now. Iâm glad to see this has gone to a vote.
For elections, the issues I stated previously here (RFC: Create a Standardized Guideline for Non-Security Council Elections) are huge problems and I think shielded voting will be a big steps towards fixing that.
For other forms of voting, I think these issues are far less damaging to the process and the positives outweigh any slight negative.
Weâre voting FOR shielded voting for all Snapshot votes. Even if the Election votes will benefit the most, we think that every vote should go under a shielded voting, as we often see controversial proposals with 90% support without any rational posted by the majority of supporters. So it looks like a lot are just voting for the expected winner. Shielded voting aligns with Arbitrumâs commitment to innovative governance. It could boost participation from minority voices whoâd otherwise stay silent, potentially surfacing valuable contrarian views. Importantly, it maintains post-vote transparency, allowing for accountability while mitigating pre-vote strategic behaviors.
The Shielded Voting temperature check has concluded with a total of ~162.5m VP casted and the following results:
As a reminder, the purpose of this vote was to understand the DAOâs overall sentiment on the subject and reignite a conversation. For the time being, the default for Snapshot votes will remain public and use of shielded voting will continue to be up to the proposal author on a case by case basis.
While no clear majority was obtained, 56.69% of the casted voting power was in favor of using shielded voting in some capacity. This outcome is in itself an example of the tradeoffs in private voting. Had the vote been public, it is possible that delegates who were in favor for âAll Snapshot Votesâ would have voted instead for âElections Onlyâ in order to ensure that at least one option involving shielded voting reached a clear majority. However, due to this vote being shielded, we were able to obtain a more accurate picture of how the DAO stands on the topic.
Entropy Advisors will still commit to posting our next three non-election proposals as a shielded vote. With Against being the most selected option and the topic overall being close to a 50/50 split in the DAO, we believe it will be helpful to have some additional data points before revisiting the conversation.
For proposal authors looking to make their temperature check private, in order to post a shielded vote, the voting privacy setting must be adjusted by the Foundation. This change is dependent on their teamâs availability, so we recommend reaching out a few days prior and scheduling the vote to start on Thursday at 12 pm UTC.
From conversations with the Snapshot team, it has been indicated an upcoming feature will enable proposal authors to make a vote shielded without having to change the spaceâs settings each time.
Thank you to all the delegates who provided thoughtful rationale. This has been an informative conversation for how the DAO views shielded voting.
Thank you for pushing this forward!
It seems like the result is that 56% Elections should be shielded, right? Does this mean all elections in the future will be Shielded?
The results are in for the Should the DAO Default to using Shielded Voting for Snapshot Votes? off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats:
DAOplomats voted to implement shielded voting for elections only.
We were generally supportive of this idea and voted in favor of elections only so we could take this as a form of experimentation to gauge how well it works before supporting an implementation across board.
Now the results are in, and with majority in favor of shielded voting in some way, we are co-asking if elections going forward will be shielded @Entropy?
We had an in-depth discussion with the delegation team about this issue and decided to vote âFor Elections Onlyâ. We evaluated Shutter and realized that some of its promises could be indirectly invalidated. The fact that delegatesâ votes can be predicted based on their forum comments and that their votes can be tracked through Karma somewhat diminishes Shutterâs impact.
However, we still support the implementation of such a system to prevent possible manipulation of election proposals. We also believe that it will encourage smaller delegates to join the DAO and thus increase their motivation.
gm, I voted to shield all voting as I think it will make voting more neutral.
I am keen to see more data points and evaluate the results after the 3 pilots that Entropy will run.
I chose the option âfor elections onlyâ, as this the one that this tool will generate more benefits in my opinion.
IMO itâs worth a vote to see if the DAO would want just elections only shielded or not. As you noted based on this vote >50% of the DAO believes shielded elections are worth having.
Below are the reflections of the UADP:
We voted against this proposal since we see benefit in being able to see what others are deciding to vote for. Shielding votes during the voting period also means some discourse in the public forums may be suppressed. Itâs important to view othersâ opinions on proposals. It helps decision makers review their presumptions and question why votes are teetering towards one direction or another. Sure, there can be a bandwagon effect, but the value of signaling in our opinion shouldnât be understated. For proposals that may see a high degree of contention, we could on an ad hoc basis run shielded electionsâbut the reason for doing so should be outlined on the forums before moving to a snapshot vote. We do see how shielding elections, however, can be beneficial. But for us to be comfortable with shielded elections, we need assurance that there are more robust systems and agreements around self-voting and COI.
Alex Lumley Commenting Rationale.
Commenting Rationale:
I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the intent behind this proposal, especially the goal of addressing potential issues like the bandwagon effect and last-minute strategic voting. However, there are a few areas where I believe the proposal could be improved to better align with the needs and preferences of the DAO:
Clarify the Scope and Impact: While the proposal discusses the benefits and potential downsides of shielded voting, it could be more specific about the situations where shielded voting would be most beneficial versus where transparency might be more critical. For instance, could certain types of proposals, beyond elections, also benefit from shielded voting, or would this apply too broadly and reduce overall engagement?
Address Participation Concerns: The proposal touches on the potential for decreased participation but doesnât fully explore solutions to mitigate this risk. Consider proposing strategies to maintain or even boost engagement if shielded voting is implemented, such as encouraging more active discussion in forums or finding ways to highlight the importance of each vote regardless of its visibility during the voting process.
Incorporate Flexibility: Rather than making shielded voting the default for all Snapshot votes or elections, it might be beneficial to propose a flexible framework where the use of shielded voting can be decided on a case-by-case basis by the proposal author, with clear guidelines on when it should be considered. This would allow the DAO to benefit from shielded voting when appropriate without mandating it across the board.
Transparency on Rationale: Thereâs significant concern about how shielded voting could impact the sharing of voting rationales. The proposal could explore mechanisms to ensure that even with shielded voting, delegates are still encouraged or even required to share their reasoning in a transparent manner after the voting period ends.
By addressing these points, the proposal could better balance the benefits of shielded voting with the need for transparency and participation within the DAO.
See voting rationale here: Alex Lumley (Savvy DAO) Delegate Communication Thread - #6 by AlexLumley
Shielded voting is helpful in many ways, but also makes it harder to gain essential information that fellow delegates and other voters can provide.
I think the utility makes sense for certain types of votes, but am not sure if makes sense to apply to all voting.
Voted AGAINST in the temp check.
Isnât that what this vote proved? I wouldnât think we would need to do another vote.
Over 50% voted for Shielded Elections: 36.6% voted Elections only + 20% voted for shielding all votes = 56.6% want shielded elections.
If we need another vote, then what did this vote do?
We should respect the time it takes for >50 very busy delegates and 100âs of community members to vote on things, and not make redundant votes.
