Introducing Delegated Voting: Enhancing Governance on Moonriver and Moonbeam

the lack of UI for the delegations so far is a main problem of this, in addition to the fact that many users are simply not interested in Governance

This is the first UI easy to handle in terms of delegations at least to my knowledge, until now the rest had to be done through polkadot.js, so it’s easy to assume that nobody would. :sweat_smile:

but the information provided in a simple way will make it easy for the user to recognize the names and read a bit of their background, of course you can add a link to the forum where they show their entire presentation of the delegate IMO :thinking:

1 Like

while the UI can certainly play a role, you have already identified the primary issue behind the lack of delegation of voting rights. hence, it is essential to assess whether implementing a solution like this will yield the intended outcomes. assuming we achieve a well-defined UI, it becomes crucial to evaluate the overall effectiveness and potential impact before committing substantial resources to UI enhancements. In simpler terms, we must ask ourselves if the potential benefits justify the efforts invested

therefore, at present, the option with collators appears to be the most favorable for me. however, I do not dismiss the possibility that users can delegate their voting rights to delegates other than collators who express interest. nevertheless, it is a significant challenge to compel users to delegate their voting rights. In essence, if delegation is not by default, it is likely that we may not achieve the desired results, and certain influencers will have a greater opportunity to gain momentum by influencing their communities and their decisions.

for instance, consider how compounding is automatically set to 100% when staking in a new collator. In a similar manner, it seems feasible to implement a mechanism for adjusting voting rights. this way, users can move a slider or adjust parameters to allocate their voting power as desired, similar to how they control the compounding %

Well, if the community believes that the influencers have the knowledge to decide on the network and give it their votes, it’s their decision.

I still simply say that it is the people’s decision and not by default, because if it is because of the risk, then several collators could join and send a change that only benefits them - I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but the same goes for influencers

The important thing is that people get involved voluntarily in the decisions of the network, it is useless to put the votes by default and people do not even know that they are voting :sweat_smile:

Also when they want to withdraw from staking, the tokens will continue to be blocked in governance, so is other step that they dont will know

so imo make it an OPTION - Not by default :raised_hands:

1 Like

What we can do is we can make an ad appear on the staking page, recommending selecting a delegate, or something like that, to boost delegations

It appears that influencer’s communities tend to support them by default, but this does not guarantee that influencers have a thorough understanding of governance, voting, grants, treasury, or the genuine needs of the network, users, and devs. In many cases, influencers possess superficial knowledge. additionally, their opinions, along with the opinions of their communities, can be strongly influenced by bear markets, potentially hindering the development and support of important initiatives. they may mistakenly assume that grants / treasury funds allocation becomes unnecessary during bear market for the common good and project development, leading them to engage in actions that provoke harm to the network.

regarding collators, these individuals / entities have already demonstrated, through their actions rather than mere words, that they are active network participants who possess knowledge about technical features and understand the reasons behind necessary updates. therefore, their opinion is considered objective. collators often actively participate in discussions on forum and are an integral part of the community. they are highly valued in all chains, with each collator valuing their reputation and being vigilant about network activities. hence, I do not anticipate any provocations from them.

as mentioned earlier, my main idea is not unfounded but rather draws inspiration from one of the most successful voting practices in the Cosmos ecosystem. there, validators possess the right to vote on behalf of their delegators, while delegators retain the ability to cancel their validator’s vote. this approach empowers delegators to exercise their voting discretion.

the Cosmos community exhibits significant engagement in voting. therefore, I would not dismiss it as useless, but rather emphasize the importance of thoroughly examining how it is effectively structured in other ecosystems. taking inspiration from these examples would be more advantageous, given that expectations often do not align with practical outcomes. encouraging user participation in governance is indeed a challenging endeavor.

regarding token locking, there are opportunities for discussion and potential configurations since we have the ability to customize the code according to community preferences. In this context, I don’t see much difference when users independently delegate their voting rights to delegates. many users often forget about their actions, and they may not even be aware of the duration of the token lock. however, if this were by default , it would certainly require discussion on the forum and proper notification to the community. In general, I believe it could be similar to auto-compounding, where the delegator can determine the % of their tokens that can be used for voting. nonetheless, I think that many individuals would not willingly cast their votes if it meant a locking period. therefore, these aspects need to be discussed within the community. It seems appropriate to adopt an approach similar to a snapshot, where only the tokens present in a specific block at the time of the snapshot are considered, without affecting the lock of delegator tokens. otherwise, I believe the number of delegations would be low, which would not justify the efforts invested

@turrizt @Jim_CertHum @jrafaelangarita @GodsHunter @AlbertoV19
These are some very interesting and useful discussions. I’ve taken some notes on each point you mentioned. And the problems you are raising are definitely something we have to keep in mind while moving forward.

However, I do not see much of an engagement with the Delegate Code of Conduct :smiley:
Is it safe to assume that there is not much to add to it?
No one has any issues with any of the points?

1 Like

I think we need to establish clear guidelines based on a code of conduct defining the responsibilities of community delegates, including disclosure of information about conflicts and controversial decisions. clearly indicate the potential consequences of non-compliance.

  1. develop an open and transparent community culture for early reporting of potential conflicts and disputes.

  2. create a confidential reporting channel for community members to report suspicions or concerns about conflicts, such as messaging moderators or using a designated email address. thoroughly investigate appeals and take appropriate measures if conflicts of interest are confirmed.

  3. conduct an impartial investigation, gathering evidence, interviewing involved parties, and considering mitigating circumstances to make fair decisions.

  4. apply appropriate consequences, such as temporary suspension of voting rights, removal from decision-making processes, if a community delegate fails to disclose a conflict of interest.
    (all this should be achieved through community discussion and the gov process)

severity should align with the nature and impact of the conflict to maintain community integrity.

  1. learn from conflicts by evaluating policies and procedures, identifying gaps, and making necessary adjustments to prevent similar incidents. seek feedback from the community to address concerns and maintain their trust

I find all the points provided to be very clear, understandable, and fully agree with them. some additional points that come to mind are:

delegates are encouraged to evaluate the effectiveness of the delegated voting mechanism and propose improvements to increase transparency, efficiency and inclusiveness. delegates are encouraged to actively seek feedback from the community and advocate for necessary changes or adjustments to the gov process.

It is important for delegates to keep their delegators well-informed about the governance processes, proposals, and any significant developments. this enables delegators to make informed decisions regarding their voting rights and contributes to the development of an informed and engaged community.

delegates are expected to engage in respectful and constructive discussions with other delegates, community members, and stakeholders. they should contribute to meaningful conversations, refraining from personal attacks and incitement of conflicts. delegates should aim to conduct discussions persuasively and actively seek resolutions to issues

1 Like

I would add some specificity to some of the points. For example here:

This paragraph tells us an important thing, but it does not tell us what the majority is. Or what the consequences of not doing so are. So I would suggest setting some % threshold at which a delegate is required to participate. 70% ? And if that threshold is not met by the decision of the other delegates, he can lose his right to be a delegate. Although I suppose the latter might be something you wanted to put in a separate section.

It would be a good idea to add a recommendation on the method of notification. At least list some examples. Twitter, Telegram, forum, discord…
Or do we have a separate section on OpenGov for that? If so, then mark OpenGov for that.

Otherwise… It’s clear enough, and I don’t think anything else is needed for a code of conduct.
We’ll have to see how it works on Moonriver and maybe we’ll find some problems we haven’t thought of.

1 Like

These are very good points, Turrizt.
Though we expect the Code of Conduct to be complied with by the Community delegates, there is no strict punishment system that can enforce it.
The points you brought up - I’d leave them to the community to decide once the Delegation is live.
If there is a growing need to explicitly state all those nuances, then so be it - the community can come up with the mechanisms to enforce the rules it comes up with.

1 Like

Hey @GodsHunter !
Agree that we need to be specific when we say “majority” because it can mean 51% or 99%.
You mentioned 70% - can you explain why that would be a good number?

As for the notification method:
We will provide some guidance in the beginning, but I’d leave it to each Delegate to decide how they’d find it fit to notify their delegators and through which channels.

1 Like

Actually, it was a random number. Although it may look decent. Let’s think…

  • 100% is not possible. You will definitely miss some proposals for one reason or another.
  • Less than 50% indicates a lack of interest in your mission.
  • 90% is a high threshold to strive for. I wouldn’t set such limits initially. Perhaps in the future, this role (delegate) will become more attractive, and such a threshold can be set.
  • 66-70% could be a kind of middle ground. Not too much and not too little. Besides, we can set different requirements for the Moonriver and Moonbeam networks.

In any case, this is an experiment, and we need to observe the results over a certain period. Then we can adjust the threshold. When it comes to requirements, I try to initially look for something that is truly achievable. You can always set higher requirements. But if they start to decrease… It may not look very good. In this case, as I see it.

Of course, they should have the freedom to choose in this matter. Some may have their own organized social networks for this purpose. But others may not… I’m just concerned about ensuring that it is well-organized. And that delegators can easily find this information if they need to. OpenGov is the best fit for this. I think it’s a good solution when information is gathered in one place. This way, your delegators won’t have to visit additional locations. The need for an extra click reduces the motivation to reach the source…


What a great discussion. When we think about Web3 and the values we fight for, this is exactly it.

@turrizt I love your passion man! And tbh, I agree with your point of view that the collators are probably the most committed team in our ecosystem. I’d def delegate to my collators, but yeah, I should own the decision to whom I want to delegate to.

I also think the collators have some advantages over common individuals, because some of them have discord groups with their nominatees and it would be “easier” to convince people by simply showing their tracking records. Also, since OpenGov does not require the delegatee to stake some of his own tokens, collators can “advertise” that they have GLMR’s committed via staking, which makes them more ‘reliable’ than the average crowd.

1 Like

@lyn, I assume the code of conduct will be a live document, right? It will likely suffer some changes as we learn throughout the process… And that’s a good thing! I believe your initial suggestion is spot on.

I also noticed we discussed about what’s possible with OpenGov and some limitations… maybe it will be good to explicit mention the limitations of OpenGov, since it will help the discussion to focus on what is possible. I know you’ve answer some of the questions below, but maybe @lyn can add to the main post?

  • can we add an expiration date for your delegations?
  • is there any feature in OpenGov that can reward and slash the delegatee? (Since it does not require the delegatee to hold GLMR’s, maybe some other type of penalty like a cool off period)
  • can we limit the delegatee to certain types of proposal?
  • can we add a %threshold on a delegatee to avoid centralization?

One suggestion that I have: it would be nice to have the dashboard showing the amount of glmr the address has in staking as an indicator of his/her commitment.


Hey @tneves ,
While we hope to finalize the Code of Conduct for the initial stage of rolling out the delegation campaign, community can and should suggest changes if necessary. We can always add an appendix in the end.

Answers to your questions:

  • Adding an expiration date is an option and we may implement it in the future. And the main reason for that would be to avoid “delegate and forget” scenarios by the delegators and so that incumbent delegates themselves won’t get too comfortable in the positions. So yes, we will definitely come back to the question in the near future.

  • As far as I know OpenGov does not have have any slashing features. And if community thinks that positive reinforcement is ineffective, it can suggest ways and methods to penalize malicious behavior by Community Delegates. And once again, this Forum is the place to do that.

  • Delegators (those who delegate their voting powers) are free to choose whom they delegate their tokens to and for which tracks. We do not limit the types of tracks, or proposals to that matter, a delegator can choose. Though, I wonder why that would be necessary. Can you explain the reasoning behind your question, please? Maybe there is something we need to consider.

  • While it is not possible to limit the number of delegators or tokens a delegate can receive, we did discuss to have a warning sign when it may become an issue. GodsHunter and Alberto discussed a centralization indicator of some sort that would signal about the threat. You can read it above.

As for the staking amount: the delegation dashboard will require a wallet address, which in theory can be tracked to see whether a person holds GLMR tokens. But let us consider whether we want to have it shown on the dashboard.

1 Like

Great, thanks @lyn!
Regarding the third point, I guess I just envisioned a scenario where if I have 1,000 GLMR’s and I could allocate 100% of it for two delegators (one that could only use my GLMR’s for treasury and other that could use for Technical stuff). In this way, I don’t have to split my voting power. Hopefully I was clear, but I guess I do see a near future where we have different delegator profiles (i.e. more technical or more community driven). Sometimes the community-person might not be qualified enough for making technical decisions, you know…

Anyways, I think this is a good-to-have feature, but def not a deal breaker. I really think we are in the right direction in here!

1 Like

Pros include efficient decision-making and increased participation, while cons include potential centralization of power and delegate misconduct.