Existing validity rules for sneaky governance Snapshot Poll attempts?

1

Some dude posted a 3-day vote a few hours ago: https://snapshot.box/#/s:gmx.eth/proposal/0xefcf5745b02e8afb8a20f10f800219c47e902c67f0f7a0c36e24233e1a111496

He did all the things that should invalidate a vote’s results:

  • Posted it to take place entirely during a holiday weekend, as a 3-day only vote
  • Linked no governance discussion thread (I don’t believe he made any thread here)
  • Entire explanation & summary of what’s being voted on is only two sentences
  • He’s spamming all of his empty wallets to create the illusion of consensus

If he were to have succeeded and nobody had randomly checked the snapshot page today, would the vote have been binding? Could Xdev have circumvented it by saying “Okay we’ll implement it in 200 years”?

In terms of forward-thinking, accepting this kind of behavior incentivizes quick polls during New Years Eve periods and perhaps other international holiday times as a way to game the DAO system.

(And his two-sentence proposal has ENORMOUS tax implications, apy impact, and a host of other issues that at least bare discussion before making a 72-hour vote that received no announcement)

2

Wont pass if it didnt follow the process, and they can ractify any votes via Tally. Would recommend the creator of the vote to post a forum discussion.

Following this:

2 Likes
4

I get his points too, but the minimum is 5 days voting plus a governance post, would suggest him to post it on forum will discuss and probably would even be a Yes vote from me…

If you are reading this whoever u are please make a proposal, I wish to understand better too on why the feature suggestion.

5

Here’s an update on the same: Clarification on the Auto Compound GMX Staking Reward Snapshot Vote