Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
143 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Emergent Outcomes of the veToken Model (2311.17589v1)

Published 29 Nov 2023 in cs.GT and cs.CR

Abstract: Decentralised organisations use blockchains as a basis for governance: they use on-chain transactions to allocate voting weight, publish proposals, cast votes, and enact the results. However, blockchain-based governance structures have challenges, mostly notably, the need to align the short-term outlook of pseudononymous voters with the long-term growth and success of the decentralised organisation. The Vote-Escrowed Token (veToken) model attempts to resolve this tension by requiring voters to escrow or lock tokens of value for an extended period in exchange for voting weight. In this paper, we describe the veToken model and analyse its emergent outcomes. We show that voting behaviour follows bribes set by higher-level protocols, and that the cost per vote varies depending on how it is acquired. We describe the implementation of the veToken model by Curve Finance, a popular automated market maker for stablecoins, and the ecosystem of protocols that has arisen on top of this implementation. We show that voting markets such as Votium largely determine the outcome of fortnightly votes held by Convex Finance, and we show that Frax Finance, a stablecoin issuer, plays a central role in the ecosystem even though they directly lock relatively few tokens with Curve. Instead, they indirectly lock tokens through yield aggregators such as Convex Finance and purchase voting weight through voting markets such as Votium. Although the veToken model in isolation is straight-forward and easily explained, it leads to many complex and emergent outcomes. Decentralised organisations should consider these outcomes before adopting the model.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (21)
  1. M. Abramowicz. The very brief history of decentralized blockchain governance. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 22(2):273–298, 2020.
  2. J. Amico. Open sourcing our token delegate program. https://a16z.com/2021/08/26/open-sourcing-our-token-delegate-program and https://archive.today/X47Kb, 2021.
  3. S. Bhambhwani. Governing decentralized finance (DeFi). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4225775, 2022.
  4. V. Buterin. Moving beyond coin voting governance. https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/08/16/voting3.html and https://archive.today/y5i5B, 2021.
  5. Convex Finance Community. Convex Finance. https://www.convexfinance.com/ and https://docs.convexfinance.com/.
  6. L. Cuende and J. Izquierdo. Aragon network: A decentralized infrastructure for value exchange. https://github.com/aragon/whitepaper/raw/v1/Aragon\%20Whitepaper.pdf, 2017.
  7. Curve Finance Community. Curve Finance. https://curve.fi/ and https://curve.readthedocs.io/.
  8. Q. DuPont. Experiments in algorithmic governance: A history and ethnography of “The DAO”, a failed decentralized autonomous organization. In M. Campbell-Verduyn, editor, Bitcoin and Beyond: Cryptocurrencies, Blockchains and Global Governance. Routledge, 2017.
  9. M. Egorov. Curve DAO. https://classic.curve.fi/files/CurveDAO.pdf and https://archive.today/wZwV0, 2020.
  10. Frax Finance Community. Frax Finance. https://frax.finance/ and https://docs.frax.finance/.
  11. Analyzing voting power in decentralized governance: Who controls DAOs? https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.01176, 2022.
  12. Immunefi. Hack analysis: Beanstalk governance attack, april 2022. https://medium.com/immunefi/hack-analysis-beanstalk-governance-attack-april-2022-f42788fc821e and https://archive.today/ooHar, 2023.
  13. Ping-pong governance: Token locking for enabling blockchain self-governance. In Mathematical Research for Blockchain Economy, pages 13–29. Springer, 2020.
  14. Now the code runs itself: On-chain and off-chain governance of blockchain technologies. Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy, 2018.
  15. N. Schneider. Cryptoeconomics as a limitation on governance. https://osf.io/wzf85?view_only=a10581ae9a804aa197ac39ebbba05766 and https://archive.today/RbeYv, 2022.
  16. Snapshot Labs. Snapshot. https://snapshot.org/ and https://docs.snapshot.org/.
  17. B. S. Srinivasan and L. Leland. Quantifying decentralization. https://news.earn.com/quantifying-decentralization-e39db233c28e and https://archive.today/kRyia, 2017.
  18. Stake DAO Community. Stake dao. https://stakedao.org/ and https://stakedao.gitbook.io/.
  19. Decentralization illusion in DeFi: Evidence from MakerDAO. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.16612, 2022.
  20. Votium Community. Votium. https://votium.app/ and https://docs.votium.app/.
  21. Yearn Finance Community. Yearn Finance. https://yearn.finance/ and https://docs.yearn.finance/.
Citations (5)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com