Decrease constitution parameter for GoldToken.increaseAllowance

Governance Governance Proposals
,
1

Stage: [FINAL]

Hi everyone.

We recently noticed that there is a mismatch between constitution parameters for GoldToken.approve and GoldToken.increaseAllowance. This is because the parameter was never explicitly set for increaseAllowance, so it reverts to the deafult for the GoldToken contract, which is 90%. There’s no reason for increaseAllowance to have a higher constitution than approve, as they are very similar in function, and if anything, increaseAllowance is the safer option.

I’m submitting a CGP draft to reduce the increaseAllowance parameter to 60%.

For more details, including an explanation of constitution parameters and details of the transaction in this proposal, see the CGP on GitHub.

8 Likes
3

I have a different opinion on that. My point of view is , FIRST WE VOTE, THEN WE DESIDE THE ELECTION METHOD. Or at least at the same time.

So IMO, for every proposal you should NOT vote just a YES or a NO but rather vote
(YES/NO , Allowance_percentage, min_participation_percentage ). For example vote this: (YES, 65%, 25%).

In order to define the Allowance_percentage and the minimum_participation_percentage, the (mean or median) average of the numbers should define the final percentage number that will be used to extract the outcome.