1st Security Council Elections - starting December 10th 2025

[joanbp]

@dopamino

We can do this for future votes and add the number of the SUP tokens which equate to the 0.2% of Votable Tokens.

Great.

And thanks for the link. Sharing the figure and the link to the snapshot on the voting page before an election starts will be a big improvement.

@dopamino

Will check if Snapshot platform which we use for voting can calculate and display percentage of all votable tokens for each candidate at any moment during the vote. If it can do that we will make it visible for future votes.

That would be awesome.

@dopamino

As it stands, the process for Security Council Elections is detailed in the Constitution. Link to the relevant section of the Constitution is in the first line of this thread.

Ah! I thought I had read it, but clearly I had missed that point.

You obviously had to follow the rules of the constitution.

I think it would be worth changing the rules in the future.

@dopamino

As this is the first Security Council election, would be good to have more feedback and see if there is broad support to change and improve that process through a Constitutional SIP in the future.

Absolutely.

@dopamino

In the future, we can add to the voting page more of the text of the Forum post and relevant links.

Perfect.

@dopamino

4 . . . allow tokens that are being used for LP from within a Superfluid reserve to count for voting

This should already be the case. All tokens in Reserves (including LP bucket) should be Votable Tokens in line with the definition of Votable Tokens in the Constitution here. Please let me know if you were unable to vote with any of your tokens - including in the Reserve LP category - so we can look into it.

Huh, interesting!

According to the Snapshot page, I was recorded as having a voting weight of 6.6k SUP. I think that roughly equates my amount of tokens minus Reserve LP SUP at the time the snapshot must have been made. That’s why I thought it was a ‘design choice’.

My total amount of reserve SUP - including LP - is larger, yes. Do you need me to send any further info for you to be able to look into the matter?

[dopamino]

Thanks @joanbp. Team will look into this (most probably after holiday period). I will dm you if we need more information.

[super]

@joanbp

The problem as I see it with the “pick one only”

A great point. I was also facing dilemma while picking a candidate. And I have to go for a kinda random option. Splitting voting power just as in other proposals, would be great.

[joanbp]

Any update on this, @dopamino ?

Apart from my personal interest in it, it would be good to confirm if the counting or not of LP-tokens may have affected the general outcome of the vote.

[dopamino]

Hi @joanbp

I will share a general update on the overall election shortly.
First an update on the questions around LP balances.

Did/should LP balances count towards voting?

• Foundation engineering team began a review of this question last week and I can confirm that LP balances were not included in the last vote as the Snapshot strategies used did not cover this piece.
• They should be included in the future as defined in the Constitution.
• A workstream is in progress by the Foundation Engineering team to build a Snapshot strategy for including LP balances in future votes.
• Will provide an update on that in this thread when it’s complete.

How likely is it that exclusion of LP balances affected the general outcome of this vote?

Data points below indicate it’s unlikely that including LP balances would have changed the general outcome of this vote.

1. LP balances represented only 1.2 % of Votable tokens

• 509,409,407 Votable tokens at 17 December Snapshot (screenshot above in this thread)
• 5,954,326 LP category balances on 17 December
• 1.2% LP category as % of Votable tokens

2. Large gap between ‘lowest above the threshold’ and ‘highest below the threshold’

• Here are the % of vote and number of votes for each candidate above and below the threshold.

1. Blockful	            86 votes = 63.43% = 7.2m
2. 0xsimao 	            52 votes = 21.65% = 2.5m 
3. Hellwolf	            33 votes = 10.25% = 1.2m
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - threshold of 1m
4. Pilou		        8 votes = 3.42% = 389.3k 
5. WinVerseDAOplomats  	8 votes = 0.8% = 91.1k
6. Didi         		8 votes = 0.46% = 52.2k

• Rank 3 (lowest above the threshold) received 3x the vote volume and 4x the number of voters of rank 4 (highest below the threshold).

• Coincidentally, ranking by the number of voters for each candidate matches the ranking by the volume of votes for each.

3. ‘highest below the threshold’ received less than half the threshold requirement

-Rank 4 achieved less than half the threshold : 389.3k votes = 38% of 1,018,803

4. If all votes for the 3 candidates below the threshold were cast for just 1 of them, that would still have been around half the threshold

Let me know if any questions.

[dopamino]

Hey everyone, sharing an update on the 1st Security Council Elections.

Compliance Process

Compliance process has now completed for the 3 candidates who were supported by pledged votes representing at least 0.2% of all Votable Tokens:

• @blockful
• @0xsimao
• @hellwolf

Next step would normally be to proceed to step 4. Member Election so that the top 3 of the above can be chosen. As there are only 3 candidates, we have our top 3 and we can move on to the next step: 5. Installation Process.

Installation Process

This is work-in-progress and expected to complete in the next 2 weeks.
Will share a further progress update once the Installation step is complete.

Thanks again to everyone who participated in the process.

[joanbp]

Thank you!

I appreciate you taking the time to unpack the data and share the findings here - and that the team is making it so that LP tokens are counted in future elections.

I think you have sufficiently shown that the technical issue around the counting of votes did not change the final outcome of the vote.

I encourage anyone else to ask further questions if they have any. I have no more questions at this point.

[dopamino]

@joanbp LP balances are now included under Votable Tokens calculation at Snapshot time.
Users can check their total votable tokens by connecting their wallet at Snapshot Proposals page

[joanbp]

Thanks for tagging me, @dopamino

Could you please ask a dev to check up on this - feel free to check it for my wallet specifically as a test.

When I log in on Snapshot, my voting power is shown as 7.3k SUP.

This number equates my current regularly staked + unstaked SUP (rounded off), but it does NOT include my LP balance.

[dopamino]

@joanbp will do and keep you posted

[dopamino]

@joanbp , Foundation engineering team has reviewed and also been in touch with Snapshot team and seems for technical reasons (missing configuration change) the new code for including LP balances in votable tokens will only be effective from the next Snapshot vote - so excluding the vote on the Superfluid Snapshot which is currently live. Thanks for your feedback which led to this investigation. Hopefully we will see it resolved at the next vote.

[joanbp]

Ok, thanks. I will keep an eye out for it in the next vote.

[joanbp]

Just to share with the community:

As of SIP #12, LP balances seem to be correctly accounted for when voting on Snapshot.