BLIP1: Decentralized Voting System for Blast Gold Allocation to DApps and Tokens

BLIP - Submission Forum
1

Proposal Title: BLIP - Decentralized Voting System for Blast Gold Allocation to DApps and Tokens

Proposal Type: Governance - Yield Distribution Allocation

Executive Summary: This proposal aims to revamp the existing Blast Gold allocation mechanism by implementing a decentralized voting system that empowers $BLAST token holders to directly allocate 40% of the 50% of Blast Gold designated for DApp and tokens.
Additionally, an exclusive 10% of the total 50% Blast Gold allocation is reserved specifically for token holders who actively participate by staking their tokens and voting.
This staking model is designed to decentralize decision-making, enhance the significance of governance, and reward token possession.
It incentivizes token holders to engage actively with the Blast ecosystem and select the best projects for investment, thereby aligning their interests with the long-term success of the platform.
The introduction of dilutive voting ensures a broad and equitable distribution of resources among multiple projects, fostering a fair and diverse development landscape.

Motivation: Following the challenges faced with District One, which misused Blast Gold and diluted trust in the program, there is a critical need to refine the allocation process.
By implementing a decentralized voting system, the community can regain control and restore credibility to the Blast Gold program.
The proposed staking and voting adjustments aim to increase transparency and align project funding more closely with the community’s interests.

Proposal Details:

  • Allocation: 10% of the 50% of Blast Gold allocated for development each month will be distributed based on community votes.
  • Staking and Voting Mechanism: $BLAST holders can stake their tokens to participate in voting. The voting power increases with the length of the stake, promoting long-term community involvement. Voters can allocate their votes to multiple DApps or tokens, but each additional vote dilutes their overall voting power, ensuring a more equitable distribution.
  • Rewards for Staking: Stakers receive an annual yield of 10% in Blast Gold, calculated monthly, incentivizing both participation and long-term holding.

Implementation:

  • Phase 1: Open community discussion and feedback on the proposed system (30 days).
  • Phase 2: Development and testing of the new staking and voting system (60 days).
  • Phase 3: Implementation of the voting system with the first cycle of voting and ongoing monthly adjustments based on operational feedback.
  • Review and Adjustments: Quarterly review of the system’s effectiveness, with potential adjustments based on community feedback and system performance metrics.

Associated Costs:

  • System development by diaso.xyz: Estimated $150,000, given the complexity and security needs.
  • Monthly operational costs: Estimated $5,000 for administration, monitoring, and continuous system improvements.

Prior Proposals:

  • This proposal integrates community feedback and past experiences, particularly the challenges faced with District One, to propose a forward-thinking and community-driven funding model.
7 Likes
2

So a ve-model? :+1: I like your proposal, something is needed.

1 Like
3

Few thoughts:

When you say decentralized, I suppose you are not just referring to giving power to holders but also making the entire system on-chain and public?

We’re talking about Blast, a full-stack chain, right?

Gold distribution to DApps and DApps to users should be fully on-chain and public.

This will promote transparency and reduce reliance on the words of a developer.

Secondly, how would you control whales from gaming the system? It’s obvious some DApps have played with their users and probably have more $BLAST stock than the average whale.

Either way, it would be best to set up some kind of max voting power/weight, irrespective of the amount of staked $BLAST.

Then, there’s the issue of voters not having a good knowledge of how these DApps performed. There are probably more than 100+ DApps on Blast L2, with many more in development.

Will delegation solve it?

Is there a way to monitor DApp performance on-chain without the need to rely on delegates?

How would community performance be measured?

Maybe a monthly DApp performance community poll.

In the end, a system that doesn’t give equal opportunity to both whales and shrimps doesn’t make any difference.

1 Like
4

Yes, a ve-model.

Fully on-chain integration could be difficult in the short term for the mobile app. We are considering an off-chain voting API.

We expect to see bribes from dApps to incentivize votes.

Delegation could also be a solution.

The whale/shrimp debate is always complicated, and it is always a tough choice between Sybil attacks and whale manipulation.

If a whale locks some BLAST for 4 years, BLAST’s price will be their primary interest, making short-term yield less interesting. By definition, a whale is the biggest holder of BLAST.

I believe that dApp discovery could be better if decentralized, rather than being managed by a foundation of 10 individuals.

1 Like
5

You raise some incredibly important points regarding the implementation and potential pitfalls of a decentralized governance system, especially in the context of a relatively new blockchain like Blast. Your concerns about transparency, whale dominance, and voter knowledge are absolutely valid and crucial to address for a truly fair and equitable system.

Let’s break down each point and discuss possible solutions:

1. On-Chain Transparency and Public Audits:

You’re right, true decentralization goes beyond simply granting voting power to token holders. It means making the entire system, including governance, transparent, verifiable, and auditable on-chain. This eliminates the need to trust developers’ word and empowers the community to independently verify actions and decisions.

Solutions:

  • On-Chain Governance: All proposals, votes, and outcomes should be recorded on the blockchain in a publicly accessible and verifiable manner. This ensures transparency and allows anyone to audit the system.

  • Smart Contract Audits: Regularly audited smart contracts for governance mechanisms are essential to prevent malicious manipulation and ensure the integrity of the system.

  • Publicly Accessible Data: Open APIs and dashboards should be made available to track DApp performance metrics, including liquidity, trading volume, user count, and user retention. This data should be auditable on-chain to ensure its accuracy.

2. Controlling Whale Dominance:

Whale dominance can create an unfair advantage in governance, potentially leading to decisions that benefit them at the expense of the broader community.

Solutions:

  • Max Voting Power/Weight: Implementing a system that caps voting power based on a specific token amount or time-weighted stake can prevent whales from disproportionately influencing decisions.

  • Token Bonding Curves: Employing bonding curves that reward early adopters while preventing excessive accumulation by whales can help establish a more balanced token distribution.

  • Quadratic Voting: This system gives more weight to smaller stakeholders, allowing them to have a greater voice.

3. Voter Knowledge and DApp Performance Monitoring:

You are right to point out the challenge of voters lacking knowledge about the vast number of DApps on Blast. Relying on delegates for information can create a trust issue and potentially limit the accuracy of information.

Solutions:

  • On-Chain Performance Monitoring: Develop on-chain mechanisms to track key performance metrics of DApps, potentially using oracles or decentralized data aggregators. This data can be visualized in accessible dashboards for community review.

  • Community Performance Polls: Regular community polls, potentially integrated with on-chain data, can provide feedback on DApp performance and incentivize healthy competition among developers.

  • Educational Resources: Create comprehensive guides, tutorials, and educational materials to equip voters with a better understanding of how to evaluate DApps and participate in governance effectively.

  • DApp Rating Systems: Develop decentralized rating systems, potentially using reputation scoring based on community feedback and on-chain performance, to help voters make informed decisions.

4. Equal Opportunity for Whales and Shrimps:

A truly decentralized governance system should empower both whales and shrimps. While whales possess significant resources, shrimps are the foundation of a thriving community.

Solutions:

  • Multiple Voting Mechanisms: Implementing different voting mechanisms, like quadratic voting alongside traditional token-weighted voting, can give greater weight to smaller stakeholders.

  • Incentivized Participation: Encourage active participation from all stakeholders through rewards for contributing to the community, participating in governance, and providing valuable feedback.

  • Open Communication and Education: Foster a culture of open communication and education, enabling both whales and shrimps to understand the intricacies of governance and make informed decisions.

Conclusion:

Building a truly decentralized governance system requires a thoughtful and multi-faceted approach. Addressing the concerns you have raised about transparency, whale dominance, and voter knowledge is crucial for creating a fair, equitable, and robust system for Blast.

By embracing on-chain solutions, implementing mechanisms to curb whale dominance, and empowering the community with knowledge, Blast can create a governance model that truly reflects the spirit of decentralization.

6

Way too soon to lock in distribution this way.
The Foundation needs to lead for much longer.

A veBlast + a BLAST token is liquidity fragmentation at the worst possible time.

The core contributors have a lot more vision and live experience to focus on chain growth, broad ecosystem and incentives now than locking in the few protocols we have. Ve now would lag innovation nan over reward existing Dapps.

Long term broad growth is the key.

1 Like
7

Agree with @MisterTodd’s point.

I’d like to see the foundation lead the charge on Gold allocation for longer. It’s still too early to decentralize distribution at this stage.

With that being said, the launch of $BLAST introduces an additional criterion for the foundation to look at when allocating Gold, and that’s balance sheets. If a team does not hold a significant amount of $BLAST in their dApp’s treasury, it might make more sense to allocate to other dApps that do (assuming all other criteria are the same or similar).

8

I 100% support doing something similar to Curve, where Blast token holders decide where a portion of the Gold emissions go but a 4-year lock is not smart, I think going with the convex approach of 16-week locks is optimal

1 Like
9

What did D1 really do that you guys only mentioned them is it because of personal beef or what? D1 was so fair, I got some gold it was impossible to get on other dapp. D1 was the reason many got onboarded on blast! Is blast only for whales or seeks massive adoption. Your opinion is biased! Sorry to say? You have no vote from me.

10

Thank you for drafting this Blast Improvement Proposal (BLIP). The Foundation has reviewed, and the submitted BLIP does not fall under Tokenholder purview in accordance with Section 4 of the Governance Bylaws.

Nevertheless, we appreciate the well drafted BLIP, as well as the time and consideration that went into this. However, because this BLIP does not meet certain requirements, or does not fall within Tokenholder purview, a Blast Foundation moderator is going to close this thread and move the thread to an archived channel.

While this BLIP does not fall under Tokenholder purview, community ideas and feedback are actively reviewed by the Foundation, and certain aspects can be implemented by the Foundation directly without the need for governance. We encourage community feedback and appreciate you sharing your thoughts here.