Discussions on multiple choice voting

Author: Cozeno

Many users and proposal authors have voiced confusion regarding the structuring of proposals that allows multiple choice voting. In an effort to make multiple choice voting scenarios simpler to navigate, here are some proposed guidelines for discussion. I welcome everybody to scrutinize these measures and discuss how to make multiple choice voting more intuitive.

Due to the inherent complexity of approval/rank choice/quadratic voting systems, proposals should try to use the single choice voting format as much as possible. This is especially so when the number of actionable items are less than four; in which case the actionable clauses can be distilled into single choice combinations of actions. Instead of putting each actionable clause up for consideration, try bundling them as much as possible into single options, and only leave out the most controversial for separate voting.

In the case where no one has raised any objections to any items in a large list of actionable clauses, (like FIP 91), or such controversies were already discussed and amended by the time of last call; then it would be advised to use single choice voting for the entire agenda as a whole.

For instance if there are actionable items A, B, C, D and E in the proposal, and items D, and E, has been controversial with DAO members both supporting and opposed, while the other clauses are unopposed. In which case the single choice voting options can be instead structured into:

  • ABC
  • ABCD
  • ABCE
  • No change

If the number of actionable clauses is high, and several individual items are contentious; then the author should consider structuring their vote via multiple choice with the following guidelines:

  • In any multiple choice voting (either “approval voting”, or “rank choice voting”, per snapshot.com), there should always be a singular “No changes/further discussion” option for voters who believe that the proposal should not pass in any combination of choices or contains a clause that is inappropriate or poses risks to the protocol. If the vote for “no change” option exceeds the vote received by the highest single actionable clause, the entire FIP should be considered to have failed.

  • Any actionable clauses in a multiple choice vote that does not clear 10M quorum will by default fail. There is no need to create a negative option for every actionable clause, not voting in favor of an individual clause is considered by default as not in favor. As mentioned above, If a voter finds a particular clause to be particularly objectionable or outright dangerous to the protocol they should vote for “no changes” and voice their concerns at the forum discussion thread.

  • At the end of the vote, if the “no changes” option did not receive the highest vote; then all actionable clauses that have crossed the 10M quorum should be aggregated and forwarded for multisig execution/on chain voting as appropriate.


Pending further discussion and revision, a final copy of this guide would be put forward to a snapshot vote. If passed, it would be affixed to the forum sticky “FIP post guidelines”, as an officially sanctioned guide on how to structure multi-choice votes. It would not be a binding procedural framework, though DAO members could offer advice to FIP authors based on this guide.

An Alternate system for multiple choice voting would be that only individual clauses that exceed the vote of “no changes” would pass.

The chief rationale of this alternative system is that controversial clauses would essentially require individual ratification, as they not only need to clear the 10M quorum, but must also exceed the number of voters who found any single clause to be objectionable.

This would also improve the voting power of the “no change” camp somewhat. Since users can vote for as many options as they like, they can vote for both the options they like and “no change” at the same time. This can be conversely be understood as creating a higher quorum for controversial clauses that the user dislikes.