I would like to express my concerns about the filtering in Minswap catalyst voting.
Like in Fund 10, a lot of great proposals are missing in the last 50 list of the current Fund 11 voting .
I can see an absolute lake of transparency in the filtering process.
It does not seem appropriate to me that Minswap’s enormous voting power is used in such an undemocratic way.
All proposals should be maintained, or perhaps we should use the Catalyst Assessment Score to perform a filtering if really necessary. But filtering with opaque criteria, by people whose own interests are unknown (I am not saying they don’t do it properly), seems very wrong to me and goes against the spirit of Web 3 and the reasons why we are in the cryptospace: “remove the middlemen”.
If Minswap doesn’t rectify before Fund 12 voting, I think I will move my liquidity to another Dex as I do not want to be part of a biased process in which funds are used in an undemocratic way…
Transparency should be at the core of this project.
actually I love minswap. and I put my 5 % of position in min LP. I dont care about result of voting. my concern is decreasing price of min token. it can lead to withraw my LP to another dex or ETH. important is decrease farming profit. it is very important. bacause many compare another dapp and layer, check profit.
But I love minswap. they do well. they can overcome everything, I think min can reach Top 10 in dex dapp in near future. morevover ADA have lots of potential. I was interesting to buy LP in pancakeswap but I did not do that. Minswap is better than Pancakeswap.
Yeah OK, cool. I like the Dex too. If not I wouldn’t’ bother spending even 1min of my time writing in this forum.
But, the issue I am pointing to is that Catalyst proposals filtering is arbitrary and going against descentralización of Cardano space.
For me it’s’ a big fat red flag and I would like the team to rectify or at least to explain me that I am totally wrong and why.
I was wondering if you could provide some additional information on your concerns. The Catalyst proposal selection group is a group of community members, and I am a part of that group. We are very active on Discord and Twitter. I’ve even discussed the way we use AI to help select proposals, and it was useful enough for other projects like liqwid to use it.
I am concerned you think it’s biased, because we put a lot of effort into removing bias from our selections. We do our best to select proposals that benefit Minswap and Cardano. Obviously we make mistakes and let some good ones slip through the cracks, but it’s not intentional and we lament our errors and try to improve on the next round. We do our best to be as transparent as possible.
Can you tell me more about why this process is biased? Did you have a proposal that didn’t make it in and believe should have?
Sorry to hear you are concerned. I am also part of the voting group. All I can say is that the selection process tries to eliminate to bias to the extent possible with randomisation of allocation of proposal reviews. I believe reviewers are independent in their choices and open to discussing concerns when they have doubt. What we aim to achieve is a curated list of proposals which we believe will create long term value for the ecosystem. So yes it may not be perfect as there is a huge amount of proposals to review, value can be subjective and we try to be somewhat systematic about it when doing initial filtering. But at the same time the team welcomes suggestions from the community (projects or users) on Discord for proposals which they think are also of value so that they can be assessed on their own merit.
I invite you to participate and share such great proposals in the future with the team so that we can give them attention. But keep it mind that it will remain a short curated list. So not all proposals will be presented in the end.
I truly believe minswap is a force for good and always encourage the community to be so.
I think you misunderstand a LOT of what is going on. Let’s start with your simple premise of “if Minswap doesn’t rectify”. Who EXACTLY is “Minswap” in this scenario, because the entire process of registering and voting in catalyst was established by a DAO proposal…
So, it seems like you are saying “this process that was approved 98% Yes vote by the DAO must be changed”, but you don’t even suggest who should change it or how.
I would suggest to you that you are approaching this with an unrealistic expectation that there is some person out there with the power to single-handedly impose changes on the current process. in reality, if you want a change then first, you need to own MIN so that you can participate in governance. Then, you need to craft a proposal that actually specifies a new approach in detail (rather than just complaining about the existing approach and leaving the hard work to someone else). You need to post your new proposal here in the forum, and then actually get out and lobby for enough people to come and support that proposal so that there is cause to put your solution to a vote on chain.
Maybe the title of my post is too strong and “biased” wasn’t the right choice of word. In any case, it wasn’t meant to offend you guys who are spending time and energy reviewing the proposals. I am sure you’re doing a great job. Just to clarify, I’ve got no proposal to be founded, so I am not a frustrated developer or entrepreneur. I am a simple voter, using both Catalyst app, and Minswap DAO, with limited voting power. I wish I had time to do more than just voting (and sometime writing something in a forum), but I don’t. So my only interest here is to express my concern about the filtering process.
When using Catalyst app o Website, I have access to every single proposals and to each reviewer’s explanation about his notation. There’s a lot of stuff, probably too much and I clearly don’t have enough time to read everything. But still I get the whole package, not a sample, and my decision follows my criteria only, which can be wrong, but it’s just mine.
Instead, when voting in Minswap DAO, the process starts directly with a small sample of hundreds of proposals. I can only choose between 50 proposals previously filtered following a list of 7 criteria and with no option to get to know why exactly the other 650+ have been removed. I understand that the number of 50 proposals is more manageable than 700+. But what worries me is that Minswap’s voting power is enormous comparing to average participants in Cardano Governance. So, limiting our choice to only 50 proposals is introducing a bias in the whole catalyst voting process. Are you sure this is OK for the ecosystem ? Are you sure that this is a good way to participate in Cardano’s governance ? In my opinion it’s a step backward and does not help to achieve a greater decentralization and does not push people to really think about what they are voting for.
So, ¿do I have a solution to propose?
Maybe the simplest solution would be removing the filtering. Letting MIN holders do the work and decide for themselves.
Or maybe be more transparent and publish the exact reasons why proposals have been removed or chosen (that’s would be more work for reviewers, sorry ).
You certainly make reasonable points. Here’s my viewpoint on some arguments FOR filtering.
effectively, Minswap DAO is the entity that casts the vote. One objective of filtering is to identify proposals that would be beneficial to Minswap. There’s also an effort to filter out proposals that might be highly controversial in order to keep Minswap out of big controversies.
it makes sense to draw a line somewhere and have Minswap only vote for X number of proposals (currently 20). It is alot to ask of MIN holders to go through every proposal when only the top 20 will get a vote. It’s also being pretty hopeful that with >1,000 proposals the top 20 would include the proposals that stand to benefit Minswap the most. There could easily be popular proposals that would in no way benefit Minswap and personally I’d like to see them filtered out.
it is a lot to ask of the Min Labs team to have them build a voting app that can effectively manage all of the proposals. If there are just 1,000 proposals listed 1-1000 and no way to sort them or filter by category, etc then that would suck as a MIN governance voter. I’d rather Labs be building V2 than building a catalyst proposal voting app to reside inside Minswap governance portal.
Theres a variety of reasons why we use filtering. I think GT outlined quite a few.
Another reason is to help promote the DEX and the ecosystem. As Im sure you saw with both Fund 10 and 11, theres a lot of proposals. There were a number of proposals that got funded that maybe werent that great. Or could even be working against Minswaps interests. If you thought good proposals slipped through the cracks this time for a team of people that spent 10s of hours reading through proposals and debating which ones should and shouldnt go in, imagine how bad it would be if there were no filtering at all and people with less time and dedication to research voted on things. Obviously this is a double edged sword, because that also means individuals who do their due diligence (such as yourself) may have found good proposals that werent included in that filtered list. The best solution to that is to join the filtering team or directly bring proposals you find interesting to the attention of the entire Minswap community. When we get a request from anyone to look at an interesting proposal, we do, and many times it gets advanced in the process just because someone .entioned it (even though it may not get selected for the final list).
I agree with you that transparency is the best practice, but I think an explanation for why every proposal didnt make it in is unreasonable. For Fund 10 I released parts of the AI analysis, and for Fund 11 I made it publicly available on a website. Id be happy to share that again, and you could browse through it. I think one thing we could do in the future is release a final report that includes additional information on the selection process.
).