Marking a proposition as spam and seize the associated veBANK

In view of the recent Lofty spam proposal (there is no other words to qualify this : went against all the comments on the forum, did not give any technical/ legal details on the implementation, did not discuss any implications for the protocol), and in order to avoid that such proposal flourish I suggest to add a button ‘no with burn’ or ‘no with seize’ to the voting module. If sufficiently many users vote for this option, the veBank and associated bank used to create the proposal would be either destroyed or seized and sent to a community fund.

Of course my goal is to try to prevent seeing other similar propositions so I am open to discussion about better options

1 Like

@Rone I think it is more an issue of process than imposing penalty, as that could be open to manipulation.

Protocol review for each proposal put forth is less than ideal. Perhaps a tag at least for qualified/disqualified proposal?


I like disincentivizing frivolous (or worse, malicious) proposals, but I would be concerned that a seizure option would itself make the proposal process subject to a coordinated attack by malicious entities for the sole purpose of seizing assets, rather than adhering to the spirit of the proposal process. I personally would be nervous to make a proposal, no matter how legitimate and pre-vetted it was, if I thought my assets could be seized. Perhaps there’s a simpler way, similar to email, where voters can elect to “mark as spam” and with enough critical mass, the proposal is displayed with “high spam likelihood”, thereby increasing the odds it gets voted down.


I dislike the negative reinforcement aspect of this. I would rather make it more difficult to get a proposal to vote, and reward the proposer with BANK for successfully bringing a meaningful proposal to vote. This way you incentivize well constructed ideas instead of penalizing bad ideas.

imho we dont need BANK rewards to incentivize good proposals, making Algofi better by proposing good ideas is incentive enough since you are inherently interested in a successful protocol when you locked your BANK

i also dont like the “negative reinforcement aspect of this”. especially i imagine giving people the option to vote ‘no with burn’ would result in everyone voting no doing this because they might think oh burn good for me

1 Like

Personally I like the idea of slashing but I get the hesitation around it. If there’s no way to administratively stop proposals that attempt to circumvent the process slashing presents an economic deterrent. Slashing should be limited to proposals that attempt to bypass the process or manipulate the governance process. Another tool to consider is to charge a fee for proposal submission. To submit a proposal you must have x veBank and a proposal costs y veBank.

I don’t think malice has been proven or that anyone is intentionally trying to skirt the rules. So, I’m inclined to let this one go as a mistake and a learning experience. Even if it were to pass, the documentation doesn’t link to the subject, so the devs could easily write it off as not properly formatted etc. Anyway, I’m not a fan of slashing, but believe we could establish a better process leading up to the vote. We’ll need to discuss elsewhere, but needing 100K veBANK to propose a vote is fine, but perhaps we should require X others w/ X veBANK to ratify a proposal before it shows up on the governance platform.

1 Like

I do not really agree with slashing or punishing proposers because that could significantly disincentivize those with good intentions who want to propose improvements to Algofi but may be worried about their funds being slashed. I think this scenario was entirely an accident.

1 Like

I think your heart is in the right place, but no need to jump to such a drastic measure so quickly. Sure, people should read the rules and adhere to them before making propositions, but this is a very young governance project. We ought to cut some slack in the beginning. Further, as other users have pointed out, if putting forth a measure means risking my BANK, why would I ever propose a measure that I don’t already know will pass? It seems anti democratic to me.


Thanks everyone for the interesting and well thought answer. Indeed the risk of people manipulating the seize / burn mechanism if implemented has to be considered. However, without some form of slashing, I expect that different forms of spam proposition will flourish. The risk is not that such propositions pass but rather that bad people use governance in order to promote malicious websites (for instance by linking a malicious link in a governance proposition) or serve their own interests.

I completely agree that the governance being still young we have time to discuss this but better put it on the table.


Maybe cause a proposal cooldown for failed proposals instead of siezing or slashing. Would prevent crap proposals from being spammed but allow for us to occasionally step in dog shit.