Anonymity in Delegation

đź’¬ General
1

I believe delegates should remain anonymous. I’m not sure how that could be implemented, but I’m already starting to see potential issues.

For example, I was contacted by the creator of the current SIP, who invited me to take part in the project once it’s launched. I don’t doubt the person’s good intentions — really, I don’t — but it’s strange that this SIP, despite its large budget, is being so well received. It makes me wonder if others were approached with the same kind of proposal.

I’ll admit, I feel a bit hesitant about posting ideas here now.

Just sharing my thoughts — I don’t expect much.

3 Likes
2

Thoughts from other @Delegates on this topic?

RE: author contact
You should expect SIP authors to reach out to you advocating for their ideas, as they would anyone who holds influence over the vote outcome.

RE: delegate anonymity

Reasons to maintain voting transparency:

  1. Accountability to the community
  2. Transparency in decision-making
  3. Trust-building between delegates and voters
  4. Enabling informed delegation choices
  5. Preventing collusion or malicious behavior
  6. Fostering two-way communication and feedback
  7. Building public credibility and reputation
  8. Strengthening the DAO’s legitimacy
  9. Supporting external partnerships and media relations
  10. Encouraging responsible, values-aligned governance

Reasons a delegate might choose to remain anonymous in a DAO:

    1. Personal safety and privacy
    2. Protection from harassment or social pressure
    3. Freedom to vote independently without fear of retaliation
    4. Ability to separate online identity from real-world identity
    5. Alignment with Web3 values of pseudonymity and decentralization
    6. Mitigation of bias based on identity (gender, race, nationality, etc.)
    7. Avoiding legal or regulatory exposure
    8. Focusing on ideas and actions over personalities
    9. Experimentation with new forms of representation or governance
  2. Operating across multiple DAOs without conflicts of interest becoming public

I do not believe personally it is in the intended spirit of our “vetted SandFam” delegates (using TSB VP) anonymously. That’s my interpretation of the intent.

But, like most matters, it is, of course, always up for discussion here!

2 Likes
3

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I agree that transparency in delegate voting fosters accountability and trust within the community, aligning with the DAO’s goals of open governance. While anonymity can offer personal privacy and freedom, I believe our vetted SandFam delegates should prioritize public credibility and two-way communication to strengthen the DAO’s legitimacy.

3 Likes
4

I think anonymity would be a good thing and even for SIP authors, authors should only have the right/opportunity to disclose their identity at the end of the vote.

The entire discussion part could be done via a pseudonymous account.

I sincerely believe that we would gain in transparency and efficiency.

This is beneficial because it encourages us to focus on ideas more than people.

In addition, people could create bets on polymarjet, okay, I add that in a joking tone but it’s still something feasible :sweat_smile:.

1 Like
5

I do not know how you can build trust if people are staying anonymous. I will never vote to give 10 to 100 k$ to an anonymous accounts. I vote for transparency every single day it outweigh for me all other benefits of not doing so.

6

Anonymity is not a lack of transparency. The idea is that delegates and authors are anonymous, the delegates all the time and the authors only for the duration of the SIP.

Once the vote is over, the anonymity of the authors is lifted. The authors cannot hide behind this temporary anonymity. (and for some SIPs we will know right away who the authors are, like magic realm :sweat_smile:, but oh well).

I don’t see the problem in a system like that. It must be done via a smart contract, the author must provide all the necessary information but it only appears publicly after the vote is over.

No one can hide behind anonymity to scam the dao. We can add security, such as: waiting for the revealed identity to be confirmed for the funds to be released. This prevents fakes and identity theft.

I’m not saying it’s ideal but taking the time to think about it is not a bad thing, I think.

So far I don’t really see any proposal to improve the dao and our operation, only external projects, external projects are good but it’s a shame that there isn’t a single proposal to provide real decentralized management tools.

7

Agree – discussion around this topic can be fruitful whether or not it happens.

Agree – there has been more proposals to improve TSB than to change the DAO ((but this may be a good thing, since it takes time to see what works and what doesn’t))

1 Like
8

I agree with seb that bribery is a real risk we face today, but I don’t agree that anonymity is the solution.

A truly corrupt delegate will always find a way to accept bribes, they can always reach out to the parties themselves instead of waiting for SIP authors to initiate contact.

My issue with anonymity is that you can’t build an identity as a delegate so people will have a more difficult time understanding your expectations. My views for example are heavily skewed towards favoring tech improvements, and I think if anyone looks at my voting history and reasons for it they will clearly understand my ideals and be able to mentally box them as robbie.eth.

Additionally, in many ways we are already anonymous, we don’t have personal identities tied to the DAO, just pseudonyms. Is the proposal that everyone just has name “Delegate”? in which case we can’t even differentiate between delegates that might make it even harder to understand if a delegate is accepting bribes because we couldn’t tie different voting behaviors to the delegate.

2 Likes