Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: simple majority execution #534

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Sep 8, 2023
Merged

Conversation

pscott
Copy link
Contributor

@pscott pscott commented Sep 6, 2023

Closes #531

@pscott pscott requested a review from Orland0x September 6, 2023 12:04
ProposalStatus::VotingDelay(())
} else if timestamp < *proposal.min_end_timestamp {
ProposalStatus::VotingPeriod(())
} else if timestamp < *proposal.max_end_timestamp {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we shouldnt have a VotingPeriodAccepted status with the strategy

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i think just ignore min_end_timestamp

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm so the rationale behind that was:

  • those who don't want the early end can set min/max to the same value
  • those who want to have an early end (for whatever reason) can still have it without having to write another strategy

Copy link
Contributor

@Orland0x Orland0x Sep 8, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the thing is min/max are space params they cant be set just for proposals with this strategy.

The goal of a 'simple majority' strategy is to find the majority of VP over the voting period. i dont think it would ever make sense to have an early end. So if spaces are using this execution strategy in combination with others, they would need to update space params often which would be annoying/ error prone.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fair enough ! f6ac7e0

Copy link
Contributor

@Orland0x Orland0x left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

uTACK looks good

@Orland0x Orland0x merged commit 56d160a into develop Sep 8, 2023
@Orland0x Orland0x deleted the feat_simple_majority_execution branch September 8, 2023 10:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

SimpleMajority execution strategy
2 participants