Hello everyone, today I want to discuss how the governance system of the LISTA DeFi protocol operates. As a decentralized protocol, LISTA hands decision-making power over to the community, which is a common goal promoted by many projects. But how does it actually work in practice? Let’s take a look.
LISTA holders can obtain governance voting rights by staking tokens. Simply put, the more LISTA you stake, the greater your influence within the protocol. This mechanism gives the token a real utility beyond just being a trading asset.
In terms of scope of authority, LISTA holders can participate in a wide range of decisions. Core parameters such as the protocol’s borrowing interest rates, collateralization ratios, and liquidation penalties can be adjusted through voting. Additionally, adding new collateral assets, upgrading smart contracts, deciding how the ecosystem fund is spent, and establishing community incentive programs all require community votes. In other words, major decisions are generally made with community approval.
The entire governance process is as follows: first, any LISTA holder can submit a governance proposal, but a proposal fee must be paid (a common anti-spam measure). After submission, the community has 7 days for discussion, during which members can give feedback and suggest improvements. Once the discussion period ends, a 7-day voting period begins, during which token holders can support or oppose the proposal. If the proposal passes after voting, the protocol automatically executes it.
Voting weight is an interesting aspect. It’s not simply one token equals one vote; instead, it’s calculated based on the amount of LISTA staked and the staking duration. The formula is: Voting weight = staked LISTA amount × staking time coefficient. The time coefficient adjusts according to the lock-up period—longer lock-ups result in a higher coefficient, thus greater weight. This design aims to encourage long-term holding rather than short-term voting.
Finally, participation in governance voting also comes with rewards. This is an incentive mechanism to motivate community involvement, encouraging more people to care about the protocol’s development rather than passively holding tokens. Overall, LISTA’s governance framework aligns with some mature DeFi projects, ensuring decision-making decentralization while using time locks and rewards to mitigate short-term volatility.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
18 Likes
Reward
18
9
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GateUser-a606bf0c
· 01-11 03:44
The longer the lock-up period, the higher the weight. This logic is pretty ruthless...
View OriginalReply0
SandwichTrader
· 01-09 16:30
The time coefficient is quite interesting, but how many people actually hold long-term?
View OriginalReply0
pvt_key_collector
· 01-09 05:54
The longer the lock-up time, the higher the weight? Isn't this just a disguised pump-up? Haha
View OriginalReply0
SillyWhale
· 01-08 08:02
It's the same old governance narrative again. The staking time coefficient sounds fancy, but in reality, it's still the big players calling the shots.
View OriginalReply0
SchrodingerAirdrop
· 01-08 08:01
Another story of "giving power to the community," but the rich still remain rich.
View OriginalReply0
rekt_but_resilient
· 01-08 08:00
It's the same old time-lock weighting scheme again, feeling a bit like a new trick to cut leeks.
Wait, there's a reward? Then I need to see how much wool I can fleece.
LISTA's governance framework is indeed more reliable than some projects, but I wonder if the actual voting power still belongs to those big whales.
The longer the staking time, the higher the weight. Basically, you still need to bind your tokens to participate. Got it.
View OriginalReply0
degenonymous
· 01-08 07:56
Longer lock-up periods have higher weights? Isn't this just a disguised way to encourage long-term holding?
It looks good, but I feel like there's some trickery involved. Are proposal fees also cutting into the little guys?
Wait, 7 days of discussion and 7 days of voting—does this efficiency really beat centralized systems? I'm a bit confused.
True decentralization still depends on the distribution of voting rights; otherwise, it's the big players calling the shots anyway.
The reward mechanism sounds good, but I'm worried it might turn into an air token later on.
7 days of discussion and 7 days of voting feels a bit lengthy.
The automatic execution part is actually pretty good; at least you don't have to wait for the official to agree or not.
Could proposal fees be too high? Would small investors still dare to propose?
Wow, this is the current state of DeFi governance. It looks decentralized, but in reality, the wealthy still call the shots.
I think that's about it; there aren't any particularly innovative points.
I like the staking time coefficient design, but I hope it doesn't backfire.
View OriginalReply0
ContractHunter
· 01-08 07:49
Bro, this governance mechanism is pretty good, but the proposal fee might discourage many retail investors.
I like the time coefficient design of LISTA; it can prevent those who rush to act at the last minute.
Honestly, it still depends on the community's genuine participation; without voting rewards, no one will care.
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketSurvivor
· 01-08 07:37
The time coefficient system is essentially to prevent whales from causing trouble right before they dump their holdings.
Hello everyone, today I want to discuss how the governance system of the LISTA DeFi protocol operates. As a decentralized protocol, LISTA hands decision-making power over to the community, which is a common goal promoted by many projects. But how does it actually work in practice? Let’s take a look.
LISTA holders can obtain governance voting rights by staking tokens. Simply put, the more LISTA you stake, the greater your influence within the protocol. This mechanism gives the token a real utility beyond just being a trading asset.
In terms of scope of authority, LISTA holders can participate in a wide range of decisions. Core parameters such as the protocol’s borrowing interest rates, collateralization ratios, and liquidation penalties can be adjusted through voting. Additionally, adding new collateral assets, upgrading smart contracts, deciding how the ecosystem fund is spent, and establishing community incentive programs all require community votes. In other words, major decisions are generally made with community approval.
The entire governance process is as follows: first, any LISTA holder can submit a governance proposal, but a proposal fee must be paid (a common anti-spam measure). After submission, the community has 7 days for discussion, during which members can give feedback and suggest improvements. Once the discussion period ends, a 7-day voting period begins, during which token holders can support or oppose the proposal. If the proposal passes after voting, the protocol automatically executes it.
Voting weight is an interesting aspect. It’s not simply one token equals one vote; instead, it’s calculated based on the amount of LISTA staked and the staking duration. The formula is: Voting weight = staked LISTA amount × staking time coefficient. The time coefficient adjusts according to the lock-up period—longer lock-ups result in a higher coefficient, thus greater weight. This design aims to encourage long-term holding rather than short-term voting.
Finally, participation in governance voting also comes with rewards. This is an incentive mechanism to motivate community involvement, encouraging more people to care about the protocol’s development rather than passively holding tokens. Overall, LISTA’s governance framework aligns with some mature DeFi projects, ensuring decision-making decentralization while using time locks and rewards to mitigate short-term volatility.