Setting up Snapshot for easier ZK Nation coordination

General
1

Based on the recent conversations around different proposals on the ZK Nation forum and the Telegram group, I think the community has a need for an offchain voting solution such as Snapshot.

Proposal authors would greatly benefit from having Snapshot as a temperature-check mechanism to measure support for their proposals before they go on the Tally vote.

In some cases Snapshot could also be used for committee elections, as @Areta mentioned in the Catalyst topic:

Now, anyone can create a Space on Snapshot (itā€™s open and free to use), but in order to get a Space which would be universaly accepted as the official one for ZK Nation, we need to have a transparent creation process - this is why I started this topic.

Please note: Snapshot would serve as an OPTIONAL temperature-check for proposals. Final decisions would still be made onchain (via Tally). Using Snapshot would not be a required step for proposals.

I propose the following steps:

  1. I will create a Snapshot space using the zknationforum.eth ENS domain (Iā€™m open to alternatives or another person creating it).
  2. In this topic, we will discuss rules for proposal validation (e.g., who can publish a proposal) and voting settings, such as voting delay, voting period, quorum, and voting privacy settings.
  3. I will initiate a process to select admins and moderators for the Snapshot Space. A separate topic will be created to nominate admins and moderators, with nominees put to a vote on Snapshot.

As mentioned, the cost of setting up and running a Snapshot Space is $0 (itā€™s free), so there is no need to get any ZK funding via a TPP.

Since using Snapshot as a temperature-check is optional (onchain voting on Tally remains the primary governance mechanism), I believe all decisions regarding the creation of the Space can be made here on the forum without requiring an onchain proposal. This approach will help speed up the process.

Please vote in the poll below whether you agree or not:

Do you agree with establishing a Snapshot space for ZK Nation?
  • I agree with having a Snapshot and with the proposed steps.
  • I agree with having a Snapshot, but I want a different process (I will elaborate in a comment).
  • I donā€™t agree with having a Snapshot for ZK Nation.
0 voters
1 Like
2

I donā€™t have strong opinions on this since itā€™s proposed as an ā€˜optionalā€™ but:

  • In my understanding zkSyncā€™s governance was proposed as something of a minimalist alternative to the model found in many L2 DAOs. A subtraction I welcomed from that model was the use of Snapshot. The reason is that in my experience the results of Snapshot votes are almost invariably the same as the onchain vote (but I would be open to data showing otherwise). I therefore have always found it a little bit annoying to effectively vote twice on the same matter.

  • Governance bloat is real and I have a small feeling we might be sleepwalking into it. While optional, I suspect a lot of people will feel compelled to create a Snapshot, institutionalising it over time.

  • Once we are using Snapshot for committee elections it is effectively a kind of ā€˜fast trackā€™ and I suspect its scope will increase. This could actually be a benefit in terms of efficiency, but we should then recognise we are introducing a new part of the governance layer.

  • Finally, I donā€™t believe we should be making decisions like this by a forum vote. I know this sounds overly cautious or sceptical, but once we accept that as a legitimate way to decide matters weā€™re veering off our commitment to being a fully onchain DAO.

That being said, I donā€™t think it would be the end of the world. I just want to flag that these things have unintended consequences. So just my two cents and not meant in any kind of overly critical spirit.

1 Like
3

There has been some discussion about this on Telegram already, but as @polar suggested, letā€™s move the conversation here into this topic.

I will just repeat my points for using Snapshot here:

1) It does not replace Tally

First of all, it does not replace Tally (aka onchain voting). Instead, Snapshot is an optional voting tool that proposal authors can choose to use.

2) Temperature checks

Many delegates (even big ones) are not very active on the forum, so itā€™s hard for proposal authors to get a good feel of what chances their proposal has through a forum discussion only.

This is why many DAOs embraced the concept of ā€œtemperature-checksā€, which means putting a proposal on a non-binding vote on Snapshot, instead of going directly to onchain voting on Tally.

That said, authors would still have an option to skip Snapshot and go straight to Tally.

3) Lower requirement for posting a proposal

On Tally, only delegates with at least 21M ZK voting power can post a proposal. On Snapshot the threshold can be much lower, which would allow proposal authors to do a temperature-check even if they donā€™t have a sponsor (delegate with 21M+ ZK) yet.

As @dennisonbertram.eth noted, a lower threshold could be done on Tally with a separate Governor implementation. If that solution works well, I could see it being used instead of Snapshot.

4) Elections (for committee/council members etc)

Snapshot makes it very easy to do elections for committee or council members, or other kinds of elections.

On Tally, I havenā€™t seen anything like that apart from Security Council elections, which seems to be a specialized module for that usecase only.

5) Secret/encrypted voting

Snapshot allows for secret voting (as an optional feature) where votes are encrypted until the voting period is over.

This is extremely useful in cases where the proposal authors donā€™t want delegates to be affected by the current results (before the voting period ends).

4

Thanks for the reply @polar, much appreciated!

While Snapshot may increase the amount of work for delegates, it could also decrease it due to a better coordination, and also less proposals coming to onchain voting.

Proposal discussions can often lead proposal authors to believe that some opinions have majority support, just because of a few more active delegates who voice their opinions through discussions. But in reality there can be a silent majority which would then vote against a proposal made on wrong assumptions. Ideally all delegates would be active on the forum, but we all know this is just wishful thinking.

Since onchain voting would remain the only real place for proposal approvals, a really busy delegate could just evaluate onchain proposals. Although personally I think delegates should (and can) be more involved than just voting on Tally from time to time.

Iā€™m open to creating a GAP proposal for that, no problem. I just thought if thereā€™s a unanimous support for Snapshot it would be easier to skip a GAP, since Snapshot is an optional tool anyways. But I see a GAP may be a better choice, unless thereā€™s stronger opposition to Snapshot. I wish I could do a temperature check though :sweat_smile:

P.S.: @polar would you be willing to be a sponsor for the (potential) GAP proposal?

5

I like the idea. Wondering if forum polls like the one in the proposal are sufficient?

We tried to introduce new tooling a couple of times in DAOs and our experience is that uptake is usually very poor.

Even for the best intended purpose.

But open to trying the Snapshot deployment.

6

I think @rspa_StableLab folks might be better to propose as they are supportive: StableLab-ZKsync's Delegate Profile

I am on the fence!

7

Iā€™m in favor of snapshot yeah. Great as a temperature check and to prevent people from wasting too much time on verbal posturing.

8

If we were to use snapshot it shouldnā€™t be setup / owned by a delegate

Apparently there was a decision not to use it, so my gut feeling is that even if we voted for snapshot, the temp check should be optional for proposals. At the same time a proposal that passes a temp check likely has some good will and might be treated differently in the forum/ discussions before going onchain.

9

I see the Snapshot option as a great tool for many cases, like just checking a temp-check for a specific part of a proposal or voting on committees, workgroups, etc.

Since itā€™s free and I see it as a tool to help us with governance, I would support this idea. Also, many delegates are not that active on the forum/TG, but I think voting on temp-check proposals, many of them would share their opinion.

10

I think DAOs work with a combination of onchain and offchain (snapshot) voting. Onchain voting usually involves protocol / core infra upgrades and anything-token-allocation related.

And offchain voting is for ā€˜socialā€™ proposals ā€“ amendments to the Constitution, code of conduct, delegation standards, North Star, Governance procedures, and any-council voting as part of TPPs.

Clear guidelines for when and how itā€™s used should be written and agreed upon, otherwise, I donā€™t see a lot of people using it if itā€™s not ā€˜embeddedā€™ in the governance processes.

If people see value in utilizing something like this, Iā€™m behind Snapshot due to 1) ease of use, and 2) familiarity. But clear guidelines when each is used are def needed.

11

Snapshot is a useful tool, and many of us have utilized it in one way or another, but I would not recommend relying on it exclusively. Hereā€™s why:

  1. Governance forums ā€“ where discussions are fully transparent and accessible to all ā€“ are the ideal platform for conducting temperature checks, gathering feedback, and refining proposals before finalizing them.
  2. While unlikely, thereā€™s a potential risk in off-chain voting: individuals who vote against a proposal could be targeted or pressured to change their stance, undermining the integrity of the process
12

I think itā€™s important that we donā€™t just look at Snapshot from the perspective of a delegate but also from the perspective of a proposal author.

With Snapshot:

  • Proposal authors have a chance to measure the real support for their proposals via temperature checks.
  • They can save time and money by avoiding the development of (potentially complex) minting mechanics for a proposal which wouldnā€™t go through.
  • Proper elections can be conducted, e.g. for an accountability council, which is necessary for many proposals.

Without Snapshot:

  • Proposal authors are in the dark regarding the real support for their proposals.
  • They risk being accused of making backroom deals if they select members for positions like an accountability council themselves.
  • Or they have to rely on forum polls, which do not represent actual voting power and can be manipulated by fake accounts (especially in very close elections).

If Tally offers a similar solution (choosing between multiple options, not just for/against/abstain), Iā€™m open to that instead of Snapshot if itā€™s convenient enought to use.

13

Hey there! Our two cents:

We are overall supportive of having Snapshot (or the Tally solution) as tempchecks (and not forum polls). This would allow for further consensus prior moving to an on-chain vote and it isnā€™t too detrimental of the lifecycle of a proposal - less so if itā€™s optional.

What we surely want to avoid is having spam/scam proposals to which Snapshot has some monitoring services (alongside other features) that come at a relatively low cost. Just bringing this in case we decide to go in adopting Snapshot, to which we should consider all the functionalities and possibilities (such as weighted voting for elections).

Also, and echoing @cap we should definitely have clear guidelines on the use since the consensus seeking objective can easily detour into bringing more noise than clarity. To which, and leaving this as an open question: wouldnā€™t having a separate threshold undermine the current quorum requirement? Thinking this since the tempcheck should represent an actual vote with actual requirements in order to properly signal a potential on-chain outcome.

1 Like
14

Sharing some thoughts after todayā€™s Proposal Review Call.

As @rafa said, the decision about Snapshot should not be a GAP, at least not initially. So letā€™s proceed with having Snapshot as an optional tool, and see how it goes.

If, say, after 1 year we see that we need to have it embedded into the governance process, we can create a GAP proposal then, but thereā€™s no rush to do it right now (cc @polar).

@Sinkas mentioned that one of the benefits of using Snapshot is that it gives a directional sense of whether delegates like the proposal even before all the details are ironed out.

Snapshot can also help make an easier decision between two options within a proposal. For example, at the beginning of the call, there was a discussion about whether the Protocol Governor Upgrade ZIP should be submitted as a single proposal or multiple ZIPs. If we had Snapshot, @StanislavBreadless could have easily created a Snapshot poll to see which option delegates prefer.

This was only a brief discussion at the end of the Proposal Review Call, letā€™s have a full discussion next week at the Standing Delegate Call (cc @theshelb).

2 Likes