PIP-49 - Shielded voting for ParaSwap Governance

Hello everyone,
It seems that all those wishing to take part in the debate have done so.
This message acts as a ‘temp check’ to inform that this proposal will be put to the vote on Snapshot on Tuesday 2 January 2024.
The discussion can of course continue here or on the discord with great pleasure!
Happy holidays!


Hi @Albist, can you provide instructions on how to enable Shutter? I don’t see it under Plugins. Thanks

UPDATE: Found it, nvm


Vote is live on Snapshot.


I’ve said multiple times on multiple governance that such system is a terrible idea as it makes collusion undetectable until too late. Paraswap doesn’t have a fully on chain gov yet, but this good have dramatic consequences later on.


Of course, in the course of my research I observed your opinion communicated on the forums, and this proposal is based on the following principle:

  • Collusion already exists, I’ve discovered that negotiations outside public networks are commonplace.
  • With or without shielding, collusion can be undetectable if it’s done ‘well’, in the final moments of the vote.

What we’re saying is that some people should be allowed to collude in order to prevent another group from colluding, thanks to the vision of the direction of the vote.

That’s probably also why voter turnout is so low: we only vote if our interests are really at risk, and we don’t necessarily have an active role in governance.

The aim of this proposal is also to reactivate this active participation.

The advantage of this proposal is that it can very easily be “reverted” if the community shares your opinion on the risks it generates (if it is initially accepted, of course).


I’m sorry but this is an extremely dangerous line of thought that will eventually turn Paraswap into a dumpster fire.

Collusion is everywhere, that is not the point. The point is you can be held accountable in REAL TIME. If you make votes private, sure everyone is equal on principles, but in reality you just accelerate backroom deals. The truth is most DAOs have a top 5% voters that generally lead where the project goes. This is simply due to conviction and wealth disparities, and won’t change with private voting.

Aave tried and discontinued private voting for a reason. I honestly think such changes are a farce when the adjacent proposal is burning half of the supply. We’re just inviting a take-over to happen.


When you consider how votes that aren’t to liking are handled on Paraswap! I find this comment more than hilarious.

So it won’t change anything. The only thing it will change is that people who want to hide will be forced to get out their vote “just in case”.

A vote is a vote. It pleases, it displeases. That’s the principle of a DAO.
If the master entities of Paraswap wanted to centralise decision-making (well, more than they do today), then they shouldn’t have created a DAO.

1 Like

lol, the team is loosing the 2 votes, how are they controlling anything? There is one whale who calls all the shots here and that doesn’t seem to bother you… sure you worry about decentralization :clown_face:

Anyways, if ParaSwap & the core team are that bad as you try to make them look, what are you still doing here ?


It’s not a question of if I like a vote or not, stop being so short minded. What happens if someone massively buys PSP over a few months and sets a vote to: redirect all revenue to X (their address or anything else), what can you do stop it? Ah yes, and just after voting they begin the process to exit their position before anyone that is locked can react. By all mean, do you still find this hilarious?

Again, you’re implying that the biggest holder are team members. This can be true, especially early on like today, but the more is emitted / burned, the less true this is. Tbh this is not about the vote in itself but the quality and safety of decision making.

Again, you are free to vote in whatever way you feel like, just as I have the right to disagree.


I didn’t see the team lose the votes? Why do you say that?

Wallets are private until proven otherwise.

You’re confusing everything. I don’t blame you. I just think you’ve been a bit sentimental recently.

Take a step back. The protocol works, the DAO makes decisions. Everything seems to be going well?

1 Like

The idea of a whale hogging the votes to sink PSP is either a suicide mission or stupidity, the loss would be huge for him but why not.

However, what difference will a secret ballot make to a malicious vote? If this whale wants to cast a vote, he casts it. Hidden or not. The vote will pass…

Today, whales can be against the square. To do this, we need to make the DAO attractive and ensure that all addresses vote.

But I don’t think one person has 51% of the global voting power. That said, your projections are unfounded IMO.

1 Like

If you missed that the team was clearly against that stupid burn, you’ll need an english course my friend.

Enlighten us what do you mean here? Who are those illuminati “master entities” ?

Read this & feel free to Google Governance Attacks


I understand your point of view, even though I’m saddened by the (real) observation of how things are going in the DAOs.

The only aim I had in mind when writing this proposal was to motivate people to vote and to allow them to vote more ‘freely’.

I’d also like to make it clear that these kinds of reflections on points of governance that I’m trying to make are in no way related to PIP-50 (which I haven’t commented on).

It seems that the reality in which DAOs are managed today and the ideal I had of them are quite different, unfortunately.


I agree, this can seem like cynicism, but its a conclusion from the past 3 years of building governance products at Paladin. Better accept the facts and take the right decisions with this in mind.