MET DAO Governance Discussion

Proposals
1

Preface

Please note this is not a fully-fleshed proposal. It is intended to provoke thought and discussion. I want to hear ideas that people have on this topic, and gauge the general temperature on this idea. We’ll need to hone in a lot of details and put together a more formal proposal. It’s still quite early to talk about post-TGE, nonetheless this is an important topic that deserves a lot of consideration and discussion.

Giving Liquidity Providers a Voice

Meteora has brought forth innovations never seen before in the DeFi space. It would stand to reason that Meteora should also innovate with a novel approach to governing the Meteora platform as well as the MET token. I propose that a mechanism be created that allows market making positions on the Meteora platform to be utilized to vote on DAO matters.

Decision Making by Two Chambers

The voting power for liquidity providers would only be a portion of the total voting power. MET token holders would also have a portion of voting power as well. Liquidity providers and MET holders would be akin to having two separate chambers within a legislature.

For purposes of the MET DAO, I would propose a relatively simple structure, where the collective votes of each chamber are weighted 50/50 in the final vote. Neither group would have a louder voice than the other, so that in order for new proposals to pass they would collectively need to come to an agreement.

Qualification Considerations for Voting with Liquidity Positions

We need to carefully consider what would qualify as a market making position allowed to vote. A few points to consider:

  • A whitelist would be created for DLMM and dynamic pool markets for which positions could be used to vote on DAO matters
  • The position should have been created prior to the date the proposal is put forth (perhaps even beyond a certain window, such as at least 3 days prior)
  • For DLMM positions, the position must have had some fees claimed prior to the date of the proposal (this ensures it was in range prior to the proposal)
  • Optional: Potentially some kind of voting bonus could also be given to those that are providing liquidity on the MET token itself

I would love to hear from everyone on this topic.

3 Likes
2

Better is to keep running without $MET for 1st q

3

Use $MET as rewards to attract more funds for LP; implement staking and voting, similar to M3M3. This serves two purposes: bringing in more users, funds, and trading volume; and empowering $MET.

1 Like