LIP👊1: Base Governance Framework & Vote Weighting

1. Proposal Number & Name

Base Governance Framework & Vote Weighting

2. Keywords

Framework, vote-weighting, governance

3. Simple Summary

This proposal establishes the base framework required for submitting a Luchadores Improvement Proposal (LIP) and the vote-weighting calculation method used.

4. Context

With the release of the first season approaching, now is a good time to open the governance of the Luchadores and establish the processes used to suggest changes, and collectively decide how to improve the implementation if needed.

5. Goals

This proposal has two main objectives:

1. Establish a minimal and efficient governance proposal framework to ensure that each submitted proposal provides sufficient and clear documentation of the envisioned changes.
2. Propose a first vote-weighting method, including all Luchadores NFT holders to achieve a broad and fair distribution of the voting power.
3. Clearly specify the scope of governance: what can be voted on.

6. Means

LIP introduces two components: the LIP framework and the vote-weighting calculation method.

6.1 Luchadores Improvement Proposal Framework

The LIP framework explains what is expected in LIP; it is attached at the end of this document — and this proposal already adheres to it.

6.2 La fama: voting power calculation

The Luchaverse is made of several components and stakeholders, often overlapping but not always:

1. Luchadores NFT owner (ERC-721 on mainnet)
2. LUCHA token holders (ERC20 on Polygon)
3. Accessories owners (ERC-1155 on Polygon)

6.2.1 The voting power is to be 100% distributed between Luchadores NFT owners

In this first iteration of La Fama, 100% of the voting power on Luchadores’s governance is distributed between all Luchadores NFT holders, proportionally to the amount of Luchadores NFT held. To maximize fairness, the calculation method does not distinguish between the various rarity of Luchadores NFT.

For instance, a 2T Luchadores and a 7T contribute the same Fama to the wallet that owns it.

6.2.2 Governance Parameters

Quorum: Introducing a quorum helps to ensure that each proposal engages a sufficient number of participants to be considered. A quorum of 3% of the total Fama (= 300 Luchadores) is recommended to begin with. It can be adjusted upward or downward if needed once we can observe actual voting participation data on several proposals.

Proposal threshold: Any participant controlling >= 0.5% of the total Fama (=50 Luchadores) can publish a LIP, which will be valid to be voted on as long as it adheres to the LIP framework . [Anyone with >= 50 Luchadores can author a LIP, but they still have to comply with the framework]

Votes on Snapshot will last for 5 days [voting period - adjustable by governance], and start immeditately [voting delay - adjustable by governance].

6.2.3 Luchadores Improvement Proposal Lifecycle

A dedicated section will be created on the Luchadores Discord to suggest and discuss LIP. Using the forum mode, players will be easily able to iterate on propositions to progressively formalize them into a LIP, if there is interest.

Before being submitted to a Snapshot vote, a proposal needs to:

1. Have passed a first temperature check on Discord
2. Fully adhere to the LIP framework and incorporate all required elements
3. And if the proposal incorporate game-related or technical changes, be validated by Luchador
4. Finally, the proposer needs to have a Fama >= to the proposal threshold to be able to submit it on Snapshot.

6.3 Scope and types of governance proposal

Luchadores is an indie project of retro-gaming, because pixel art is timeless, based on the fundamental principles of blockchain. The auto battler, our core game, will be constantly balanced, we will regularly release new skins, arenas, game mechanics but also new game modes (with the Luchadores as central characters) to diversify the gameplays and conquer a new public.

The team in charge of the development of Luchadores will sollicit you to validate the next steps by Snapshot vote, to give your opinion about decisions related to:

• LUCHA & MASK
• Treasury management https://zapper.fi/account/0x0Cb11b92Fa5C30eAfe4aE84B7BB4dF3034C38b9d
• Partnership-related opportunities
• Game-balance feedback

However, we are in early stage, we are passionate about what we do to the point of having worked for free for 2 years, we have a vision for the next few years and need flexibility that is why although compliant if a proposal is deemed deleterious, technically/legally unfeasible or contrary to the original vision then it will be rejected.

The votes will be held on Snapshot, a trust-required solution. A strategy implementing the calculation method suggested in this proposal will be developed by the team. It seems sufficient to efficiently meet the project's current needs without overengineering it. Further down the line, if needed, the community can suggest an on-chain governance framework to be implemented.

7. Metrics

The success of this proposal should reflect active participation in governance from various profiles, demonstrating that the framework is sufficient and easy to understand. If needed, the framework can be refined further, using the learnings from implementing the first batch of proposals.

8. Forward-thinking considerations

With this proposal implemented, what are the next steps to consider? Does this proposal include any new parameter the DAO can adjust? Does it call for a revision of another subcomponent of the system?

The introduction of the Fama and its first calculation method is a first base enabling the governance process to start, yet it can and should be quickly improved upon. To progressively improve the Fama and make it fairer, the next proposals could consider exploring the following mechanics:

1. Introducing a bonus for continuous engagement: governance participants who voted on several proposals in a row would accrue a 1% per iteration bonus, up to 10%. This would further engagement and reward active participation in the governance.
2. Bonuses related to the wallet activity in the Luchadores game, once available fully onchain, such as giving Fama based on LUCHA earned in the arena.
3. Review the LUCHA staking and MASK accumulation mechanism. The team is currently considering a model where users would stake a LP token (Balancer 80% LUCHA / 20% MATIC) to accrue MASK. This help greatly develops liquidity without using incentives. A linear one-year lock mechanism will also be added, boosting the MASK accumulation rate up to 2x. This mechanism will be open to the community’s input in the next proposal, LIP#2.
4. Include the MASK balance in the calculation of La Fama.

9. Implementation Overview

Once voted, this proposal will lead to:

1. The publication and therefore effective implementation of the proposed framework attached at this end of this proposal.
2. The technical implementation of la Fama with the development and addition of a Snapshot strategy, incorporating the voting method, proposal requirement, and quorum into Snapshot.

10. Voting options

What options will be voted on ? For closed proposals, the classic options are :

✅ Yay

❌ Nae

🥃 Abstain

---

Luchadores Improvement Proposal (LIP) - Proposal Framework

1. Proposal Number & Name

Snapshot vote title : a number to identify the proposal, based on the order of submission and name, ex : LIP👊1 : Luchadores Improvement Proposal Framework

2. Keywords

One or multiple choice: Front-end upgrade, LUCHA token upgrade, LUCHA minting incentives, LUCHA staking, parameter update, integrations and synergies …

3. Simple Summary

Clear and layman-accessible one or two-line summary of the proposal.

4. Context

Comprehensive overview of the issue being addressed and the solution proposed

5. Goals

What are the main goals of the proposal? What is it trying to accomplish?

6. Means

What the proposal requires to come to life: LUCHA budget, additional development on the Luchadores game(s), external development, etc.

7. Metrics

How will success be measured? What metrics will be used to evaluate the success of the proposed implementation?

8. Forward-thinking considerations

With this proposal implemented, what are the next steps to consider? Does this proposal include any new parameter the DAO can adjust? Does it call for a revision of another subcomponent of the system?

9. Implementation overview

What happens if this proposal goes through? A high-level overview of the main steps required for its implementation A deadline can be added for the implementation

10. Voting options

What options will be voted on ? For closed proposals, the classic options are :

✅ Yay

❌ Nae

🥃 Abstain