Hey everyone,
I’ve been thinking about how we handle governance proposals and wanted to raise a topic that might help improve decision-making: adopting a staged or tiered voting process to prevent vote-splitting. Right now, when multiple similar proposals are submitted, they can end up competing with each other, which risks splitting the community’s support and leading to none of them passing—even if there’s general agreement on the core idea.
A potential solution could be a two-step voting process. In the first stage, we vote on broad concepts or themes (e.g., “Should we expand liquidity incentives?”), and if a concept gains support, then we move on to a second round to vote on more specific implementations. This approach could help us align early on and avoid fragmenting votes across similar but separate ideas.
Other DAOs have implemented similar systems to good effect, and it could be worth exploring what works and what doesn’t. Maybe we can discuss whether Unit Zero governance could benefit from something like this. Curious to hear if others have experienced vote-splitting in past proposals or have thoughts on improving how we guide similar ideas through the process.