[Proposal] Reduce the Minimum ANC Voting Deposit

I agree. Where is the thread on KPI bonding curves/pay for work in intervals?

I have not made a post on that yet. Still doing research and compiling things. Probably will get something up on this sometime next year.


Prepare yourselves for a whole lot of spam…not gonna know what’s real or not.

This proposal is the gateway to spam.

Bunch of spammers voting yes, knowing this is their chance.

It’s both sad and ironic that this poll is not going to reach a quorum in time. Now whoever put up this poll is about to lose 1000 ANC. Despite being the proposer, I wasn’t the one who put up Anchor Poll 9. I would have waited a little longer to get discussion around this proposal before putting it up if I had the 1000 ANC to propose it.

I would have rather people voted no and this poll been struck down than not reaching a quorum. At least that’s more constructive. I appreciate the people who voiced their opposition to the proposal and likely voted no, but it’s sad to see a lot just didn’t vote at all. In fact, the current governance structure incentivizes people not to vote:

If the poll fails to pass the minimum voting quorum, the ANC deposit is given to ANC stakers and distributed proportionately according to their relative stake. - Anchor docs

Anchor pays ANC stakers 9% APR to participate in governance when there has been less than one poll every month since Anchor’s inception. We are paying people to do a job that doesn’t exist.

1 Like

The text proposal wasn’t correct either. Even if it had passed it wouldn’t have been possible to update the Proposal Deposit Parameter because it didn’t properly stimulate what gov parm to adjust in the text.

Please ask the greater community for help if you wish to post a poll if you are not sure how to structure it.

Also, it is a good idea to wait at least a week to two for discussion to form. As you can see from this prop, a lot of people agreed that the Deposit should be changed, however, there were varying ideas on how to do that. It needed to be unified into one agreed solution before the prop was put up.

I am a bit worried if we put another prop up on this, it won’t pass quorum either.

Thoughts on how we move forward from here?

It seems like the general idea is to have it UST equivalent amount and 100 is too low?


I agree this was a good lesson learnt. The overall consensus was to reduce it and peg it to a more stable value because x $ANC can fluctuate more and more.

I think what @bradley mentioned about the incentives to vote is worthwhile to ponder and think about too. The incentive should not be for stakers to EARN but NOT VOTING …