[ARCHIVED] Let small bag holders have more power!

Proposal Title:Proposed changes to BitDAO governance parameters


Date:12th April 2022

How will your proposal, if activated, benefit BitDAO?
Small bag holders will have a stronger incentive to participate and propose changes.
Stronger community engagement

What are the projected outcomes?
More proposals to be voted on as an expected outcome.
More moderation will be required but small bag holders as a collective can be heard

How long will it take to complete your proposed changes?
Almost immediately
Who is involved?
The community
What are the milestones?
None. Besides the possibility of changing the number of bits necessary for a petition.


  1. Timeline: Immediately if voted on
  2. Budget: $0
  3. Add technical details and/or links to source documentation: None
  4. Include any other relevant details on how this proposal will be accomplished

As I came across BitDAO, I’ve realized its the same voting requirements as other DAOs.
Despite the changes from 10 million to 200k bit requirement,
the small holders still rely and depend on large holders and whales to convert the proposal into a vote.

It does not incentivize small holders like myself to make proposals and contribute to the growth of BitDao. After all, our soft proposals can get all the traction and discussion we want but without a 200k holder, it can never be passed.

In a perfect world, this wouldn’t be an issue. However, there are countless scenarios where conflict of interest occurs between a whale and a small bag holder.

That being said, I understand the need for moderation and to not be flooded with on-going votes as that may take the spotlight from truly necessary issues.

Why not empower the less wealthy with a solution like, a petition.
If a petition to vote on a soft proposal reaches 200k or say 500k bit votes, it will voted on by the rest of the community as it proves a sizable portion of the peope deems the proposal worthy.

Let’s be honest, a 200k bit voter at current value has at least 200k USD invested in a single coin that is not BTC or ETH. The derease from 10 million to 200k does not effectively help very much. What was changed was the fact that whales no longer hold all the power, big bag holders share that power too.

Proposals should not be limited by the amount of money you have. Please let everyone have a voice and power.


Curious to hear how others are thinking about achieving more community empowerment in BitDAO governance. A few quick thoughts on this. Feel free to ask for more detail/clarity.

One option is a community delegation managed by AEmbassy (aembassy.io).
How this might work:

  • AEmbassy, as an organization representing a broad group of community participants, would seek BIT delegation from labs, partners, AEs, or other empowered groups of individuals.

    • The delegated BIT would be managed under a single wallet address

    • AEmbassy members can work together to direct this delegation for governance purposes

  • With this delegation, we can:

    • Vote on BIPs as a group

    • Post proposals that we support to the BitDAO Snapshot for a vote.

    • Act as a point of contact for proposal authors to lobby for support if they do not have the required 200k BIT to bring their proposal to a vote.

  • Two well-known and straightforward options that allow AEmbassy members to manage the delegation:

    • Voting in the AEmbassy Snapshot space (Snapshot)
    • Poll in a discussion forum (Discourse or other)

Benefits to community:

  • This one-time delegation would give individuals a voice in governance without them having to seek individual delegation and incurring the gas costs associated with delegating on Eth L1.

  • It’s likely that AEmbassy as a community organization would be able to seek a larger delegation than any individual who isn’t already empowered by a BitDAO or AE partner organization.

What needs to be in place for this to work?

  • Clear governance structure for community management of delegations. (processes + platforms)
  • A partner organization interested in providing a large delegation for community use and experimentation. (200k BIT or more. Preferably 1-10+ million so we have a strong voice in governance.)

That sounds a great idea!


Thank you Lbrian!

I believe you were the one who told me to bring this up on discourse.

Can’t format and articulate these points like you did so I appreciate you chiming in.

I feel like your idea of a group vote works fine as well. Not the biggest tech guy so I assume it’s a technical issue/will make things easier to delegate all bit under one address?

Is there a potential for exploit here? To be clear I have absolutely 0 knowledge on how that works, just clarifying.

1 Like

good idea. can we cooperate with bybit. bcz most of chinese bit holder hold bit in bybit. they prefer delegating in bybit instead of metamask.

i have heard that ben have agreed with this function in bybit.


I think we could easily implement this option without any technical hiccups.

Delegating to a single address would be dramatically more straightforward and cost-effective than delegating to a wide range of addresses. Though I think over time, our goal should be to get more individuals involved in voting on BIPs.

I can’t think of how this could result in an exploit. There are some common risks associated with managing funds in any crypto wallet. Those risks can be mitigated by practicing standard wallet security measures and private key management. Maybe someone else has thoughts on this. But again, I don’t think there will be any issues.

1 Like