Process Proposals Related to Participation

To limit thread numbers, proposals are being grouped. To understand more about the proposed governance processes the described parameters, read more here.

The HOPR project is dedicated to privacy. However, certain aspects of governance security are at odds with full anonymity. Sybil attacks can disrupt processes based on one account / one vote and also quadratic voting. Spam and noise can disrupt governance.

To try to balance these competing aims, the HOPR Association proposes the following parameters to govern participation in HOPR Community Trust governance. There may also be legal restriction on some of these. We’re clarifying these ASAP with our legal advisors.

Action Identity Requirement Token Amount
Join Forum Unique registered address 10 HOPR
Post in Discussion Unique registered address 1000 HOPR
Sign Proposal in Referendum Unique registered address 100 HOPR
Vote None 10 HOPR

Seems an appropriate threshold.

1 Like

I think having a threshold is great as it stops (or limits) spam and voters etc who are not really engaged in the project from disruptive actions. What is good to see (at least in this part of the proposals, not read the rest yet) is that the token holdings are gated access, not vote weights.ive seen in other projects that voting is basically pointless as 1 or 2 whales is all it takes to render every other vote against what they vote totally pointless and vote engagement just seems to be a waste of time. One 0x one vote I say!

Thanks! Although there actually are vote weightings proposed here:

This is a modification of quadratic voting. We’ve used pure quadratic voting in the past, but actually looking at the data the pure square root version may be too weighted the other way.

One issue with one account / one vote in HOPR is the Sybil problem. Other projects would be happy to avoid this via identity checks. In a privacy project that’s not really an option.

1 Like

Yeah I’d checks is probably what the other project (HNT) was avoiding also, though could a 3rd party system be used to keep that distance (fellow Gnosis citizens Fractal for example). Maybe any kind of ID system is just a no no here of course. I’ll read that other link , thanks, though as soon as I read ‘quadratic’ my brain shut down as it is normally followed by ‘equations’ and I got a solid U in the last maths exam I took

looks good to me

These parameters reflect the Association’s efforts to strike a balance between privacy, security, and meaningful participation within the HOPR Community Trust governance.

I recall a few weeks back when Gnosis’s snapshot kept getting hit with spam/scam proposals to vote on. They had to increase the token threshold a few different times to finally get it to stop, the bot/scammer went away and then threshold was lowered again.

As a general base line, I think these requirements are pretty solid, but in times of a spam/bot attack you wont really know what amount will get them to stop until you keep raising it.

Yes, it’s hard to know how to set these until they’re tested in the wild. That’s why I’m really advising to set them very high initially and then reduce later. Balancing the other way round seems a lot riskier.


I am wondering what “Join Forum” actually means.
Does it mean they can only read the discussion and can’t neither comment nor like the post/comment?

At first glance, I didn’t get the reason why there is another threshold for “Sign Proposal in Referendum” but I believe this is because the referendum voting is not like QV (1 account = 1 vote) and needs to set the threshold carefully to avoid Sybil getting a control.
I think the proposal is a good starting point.

This is a good point to clarify. Join forum means “Have a pseudonym which is linked to a particular on-chain address and can now take actions in the forum”

The forum itself would be visible to everyone. This is obviously open to discussion, like everything, but I don’t think the discussion should gated so only registered token holders can see it.


How will this work? Users have do deposit the amount? Or will a snapshot be taken?

My rough conception was as follows:

Users sign up to a Discourse instance with a username and link an Ethereum / Gnosis chain address in their profile. At some interval (daily?) the addresses are queried and a Discourse bot with admin rights sets people’s authority levels based on their token balance

1 Like

Having looked through the various discussions why not one person one vote in this instance to try and combat the Sybil effect? I know that it doesn’t deal with those who have a higher stake and quadratic voting but i think it would be fairer and you would be able to see who is actually really involved in the community

The main objection to one person / one vote is how do you ensure that someone doesn’t get multiple votes while still keeping to HOPR’s privacy values. I haven’t found any identity verification solutions that I’m happy with, but always happy to hear recommendations.

:clap: :ok_hand: