Ratify a Temporary Governance Voting Model

Proposed by: @adamscochran

TL;DR:

• Right now, we are electing multisig holders who should sign transactions approved by the community.
• We need to clearly define community approval.
• This proposal is that signers should only sign transactions that have at least 3 voting days and pass with:

-- A 1% quorum at a 75% majority vote, -- A 4% quorum at a 60% majority vote, -- Or, a 6% quorum at a simple 51% majority vote.

• The exception being when user funds are at risk of exploit.

Explanation:

Right now, there is no minimums as to what constitutes a 'community decision' which means multisig signers would have to make a subjective judgement on if a vote has passed or not.

The only objective case right now would be if 100% voter turn out was met with a >51% majority vote.

Right now, if a vote received a 51% majority vote, but only had a 2k Sushi voting on it, or was only live for one hour of voting, it would be contested as to if the vote should pass or not.

For this sake, during the duration in which we have multisig signers, we should hold those multisig signers to an agreed standard.

From other examples we've seen with Compound, it is doable (although not easy) to get a 4% voter turnout on key issues.

We also know based on The Law of Large Numbers that the more voters who vote, the more representative of the actual population the voting choice is. Therefore we can create a sliding scale.

I am proposing that:

A) All votes are scheduled for no less than 3 days. B) Votes 'passing' are on a rated schedule of:

-- A 1% quorum at a 75% majority vote, -- A 4% quorum at a 60% majority vote, -- Or, a 6% quorum at a simple 51% majority vote.

This means the more voters who show up, the easier it is to pass the vote, as we can be more confident that it represents a vast majority of the users.

This prevents manipulation from whales or colluding whales, as well as people trying to sneak through quick votes.

But, it also gives grounds for votes to pass if they have low voter turn out but are still very popular, as we should recognize it is hard to motivate users into governance.

Pros:

• Clear rules for when signers should sign or not sign from a vote.
• Community now recognizes the vote thresholds needed and can hold signers accountable.
• Prevents votes being pushed through by a single whale, or colluding whales.
• Prevents votes being snuck through in quick turn around times.
• Allows votes to pass based on a confidence curve, not penalizing something for a low voter turnout if it is representative of a majority interest.
• Enforces the default state of proposals being rejected unless they are strongly desired by the community.

Cons:

• Leans towards denying votes on small issues that cannot get excitement for larger voter turnout (although attempts to address with thresholds)
• Slightly harder to keep track of as % are different at different levels.