-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 142
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Auto Pass Props if User Controls 100% of Voting power #776
Conversation
can you rebase on development? i think this PR is undoing some of the recent fixes |
Rebased! Please let me know if there is any other conflict |
hey @nickf12 i'm concerned about the tests being modified. instead of modifying tests, could you add new tests that specifically cover this feature? that way we can be 100% confident that this doesn't break anything. also, @JakeHartnell @bekauz, i'm curious what you think about the following:
|
first, this needs to be rebased again. i also share @NoahSaso concerns about modifying the tests and bypassing the if we do want this i think some things need to be considered:
|
yeah, great points. i forgot about veto and min_voting_period. which is kind of exactly my point, this feels like an idea that sounds nice in theory but is going to make things very complicated very quickly, to a concerning degree, and make future feature changes harder. also, if we can solve something in the frontend without making a smart contract change, i'm going to make a generalization (which i.. generally.. avoid) and claim we should always implement it via the frontend. we can solve this by adding a vote message to the same transaction as the proposal creation message. technically if someone submitted a proposal the instant before, the vote could be cast to the wrong proposal, but that's very low probability and safer than implementing this in the smart contract IMO |
i think adding an option to automatically cast a vote on proposal creation would make more sense. proposals could be configured to allow atomic prop-then-vote. if that's the case, the proposer can choose to opt into it and cast their vote or remain neutral and just create a proposal. this way we are just combining two actions that already exist, so no changes to the existing status flow should be needed. |
i love this solution, brilliant. people have asked for this in the past. |
on a second thought, is this even needed? if for any reason a dao chose not want to enable this feature, the proposer could just create the prop and cast their vote on it anyways. |
oh yeah, i guess there's no need to implement a config option for this.. nice |
hey, bump on this @nickf12, do you think you could change this PR to just add a parameter to |
closing in favor of #799 |
Hi @JakeHartnell
This should close #775