This vote will determine eligible voters for future pDAO governance votes.

There are two concurrent votes to determine voting criteria:

• Determine Voting Criteria (RPIP-4) [eligible voters: all nodes]
• Determine Voting Criteria (RPIP-4) [eligible voters: nodes w/RPL ≥10% borrowed ETH]

These votes are identical except that different strategies were used to determine voter eligibility. Vote power was calculated the same way, etc.

Context around the situation

RPIP-4 defines who gets to vote: To be eligible for vote participation, the RPL must be effectively staked in the Rocket Pool protocol as reported by getNodeEffectiveRPLStake().

This is currently interpreted by people multiple ways, including at least:

• It was meant to be effective stake (10-150%); the function was not there as a definition, but as an implementation that was bugged. Fixing the bugged function (and vote weight) was proper.
• Effective stake is defined in the RPIP using the function at the time. Fixing the bugged function (and vote weight) was inappropriate without pDAO input.
• It’s ambiguous.

Before Atlas, getNodeEffectiveRPLStake() counted all RPL below 150%. After Atlas, this function returned 0 if the node had less RPL staked than the value of 10% of borrowed ETH. The voting body was changed with Atlas release - whether that was ok depends on where you land above. Since this is about voting, we can’t do a single vote to figure out what we want – the set of people that should vote on that is in question (ie, this is a bootstrap problem). This is why the approach is to vote using both possible voting bodies to determine eligibility moving forward.

Outcomes

• If both concurrent votes (Determine Voting Criteria (RPIP-4) [eligible voters: all nodes] and Determine Voting Criteria (RPIP-4) [eligible voters: nodes w/RPL ≥10% borrowed ETH]) have matching results, the RPIP Editors are instructed to clarify RPIP-4 and RPIP-8 per those results
  • Implementation for eligible voters: all nodes (commit a967777)
  • Implementation for eligible voters: nodes w/RPL ≥10% borrowed ETH (commit f0be7ac)
• If the votes do not match, or quorum fails on either vote, no action is taken
  • Other votes will remain blocked until a future successful attempt to determine the voting body

Further context

• Ongoing forum conversation
• Val suggests a clarification and polls for overwhelming consensus – it’s clear that there’s no overwhelming consensus
• Patches suggests the concurrent vote path, which enjoyed strong support in the poll
• Deep dive:
  • Full forum thread that included both of the highlighted posts. Note that the initial topic is slightly different and that incidentally raised this point of ambiguity.
  • Selected discord discussions: 1, 2