BLOCKCHAIN GOVERNANCE & THE QUICKSWAP GOVERNANCE VOTE TIMELINE.
Blockchain governance is one of QuickSwap’s many utilities, it is also one of such utilities that sets this Polygon based DEX apart from other DEXs in the ever-increasing blockchain space. You can read up on other utilities offered by QuickSwap here while we proceed to discuss what blockchain governance is all about.
That being said, let’s talk about it…….
BLOCKCHAIN GOVERNANCE
A blockchain’s software protocol specifies how transactions are carried out, how quickly new blocks of data are added to the chain, and how large these blocks of data can be. People working on a blockchain project must figure out how to upgrade the software protocol. This requires coordination, which is where governance comes in.
The term “governance” refers to an organization’s decision-making procedures, such as who is responsible for what, how significant decisions are made or implemented, whether authority is vested in a few individuals or dispersed among all participants, and so on. All of these questions have various ramifications for an organization’s operational system, be it on a macro or micro level.
Therefore, the means of attaining the direction, control, and coordination of stakeholders within the framework of a certain blockchain project to which they collectively contribute is characterized as blockchain governance.
A blockchain project’s governance is critical for its long-term viability because it allows stakeholders to communicate and influence judgments on how the blockchain should advance. Blockchain governance is also critical for the effective adoption of blockchains as well as their ability to adapt, alter, and interact. Because blockchain projects are so vast, governance is extremely important for managing and coordinating a whole community toward a common purpose.
A good governance plan is essentially what brings a company together. Every model is, by definition, contextual, and its feasibility is highly dependent on the individual conditions. While participatory democracy may work for some, others may prefer to delegate power to a central authority.
Despite their diversity, exceptional governance models are frequently defined by a set of characteristics: clarity, honesty, efficient implementation, and teamwork.
The debate over governance in the context of blockchain currently centres around two models: centralized vs. decentralized, and on-chain vs. off-chain. The classic blockchain paradox, which puts into question contemporary power structures, is the first duel. The second is focused on human engagement and the level of automation in decision-making processes. Regardless of the governance structure, network access, funding allocation, block size, reward systems, voting, and decision-making are typically an issue.
As you might expect, on-chain blockchain governance takes place right on the blockchain protocol. Any proposed adjustments or decision-making procedures, in other words, must be incorporated into the network program. This style of governance allows project developers (also known as node controllers) to be the driving force behind company decisions and to cast votes on new innovations.
Off-chain systems of governance, in contrast to their on-chain counterparts, often include processes outside the blockchain or ‘code’ domain — it is only after a decision has been reached that its consequences are converted into on-chain action. Off-chain governance is exemplified through governance votes.
In the following section, we’ll now discuss QuickSwap’s various governance vote scenarios and their respective outcomes.
QUICKSWAP’S GOVERNANCE VOTE TIMELINE
Since its inception in 2020, QuickSwap has maintained decorum and done a fantastic job with keeping their community at the center of focus especially as the community is regarded as the heartbeat of the DEX. QuickSwap is a “community first” project and to further prove this, QuickSwap has successfully executed 6 governance votes where vital decisions were to be made.
All of these governance votes are discussed below:
August 2021
- At the time, the QuickSwap community needed a solution to aid in the reduction of sell pressure on $QUICK. There were several ideas offered, but one that nearly everyone agreed on was paying liquidity mining rewards in dQUICK rather than $QUICK. Consequently, a governance vote was proposed for the following topic: Should QuickSwap Pay Liquidity Mining Rewards in dQUICK Instead of $QUICK? This governance vote, as well as all other QuickSwap governance votes have eligibility criteria to be met. Therefore, only eligible $QUICK holders could participate. QuickSwap received 99.72% of the vote to award liquidity mining rewards in dQUICK instead of $QUICK.
October 2021
- There was a need to increase QuickSwap’s exposure and involve their community, one way of doing this was to launch an ambassador program where the selected applicants would be rewarded in $QUICK for their contribution to QuickSwap’s enlightenment, marketing, and outreach efforts. Therefore, a governance vote was proposed with the purpose of receiving assistance from the community in naming the program to determine what the ambassadors were going to be called. The name options included; Dragon Riders, Dragon Tamers, Elder Mages, and Wizards. A remarkable 99.99% of voters chose the name Dragon Riders for QuickSwap’ Ambassador program.
January 2022
- As QuickSwap continued to strive towards achieving full decentralization and a DAO structure, they decided to develop a forum to discuss recommendations/proposals and allow community members to more formally present subjects for governance proposals. The first topic that was introduced to this forum was based on the possibility of changing their rewards structure. As a result, the separation of Dragon’s Lair dQUICK staking and Dragon’s Syrup was proposed. A total of 95.64% of $QUICK and dQUICK holders voted in favor of “stakers’ freedom” increment by separating the Dragon’s Lair from Syrup Pools.
March 2022 Part 1
- QuickSwap realized that majority of users would prefer to own more of a token that has a very high max supply (say 1,000 tokens out of a 1 billion max supply) than just 1 of a token that has a much less max supply (say 1 token out of a 1 million max supply) despite the fact that they both represent the same percentage of ownership. QuickSwap therefore decided to put their governance and utility token’s psychological price threshold into consideration by letting the community vote on whether QuickSwap should initiate a token split aimed at making $QUICK more delightful to its holders. QUICK and dQUICK holders voted 93.19% in support of a token split to make $QUICK more delightful.
March 2022 Part 2
- Following the governance vote on the $QUICK token split, it was time to determine the ratio in which the token would be split. The options on the table where 1:100 corresponding to a max supply of 100,000,000 (100 million) $QUICK, and 1:1000 corresponding to a max supply of 1000,000,000 (1 billion) $QUICK. A total of 84.72% voted in support of a 1:1000 token split which resulted to QuickSwap increasing its max supply from 1 million to 1 billion.
May 2022
- Through a weakness at GoDaddy, where QuickSwap’s domain was housed, hijackers acquired access to QuickSwap’s DNS. This attack resulted in a $107,600 loss before the threat was eliminated. To compensate the community members who were affected by the domain hijacking, QuickSwap initiated a governance vote on whether or not to use funds from their treasury to pay tribute to the affected parties. 66.1% of votes where in favor of this motion eventually.
CONCLUSION
QuickSwap is still in their early phase and there are lots of developments inbound. As the crypto space continues to evolve, so will the QuickSwap DEX and the community at large. There will continue to be need for changes to be implemented in the QuickSwap protocol which will call for more and more governance votes (because QuickSwap basically exists to serve their community).
Stay updated with QuickSwap with the following links below:
