🗳️Governance

The BEAST Token governance model empowers the community to directly influence the strategic direction of BEAST through deciding which new networks or applications the platform supports. However, we will retain full discretion over the allocation of our resources for the foreseeable future and governance will reflect the right to express sentiment only.

The core of the governance process revolves around voting on proposals to integrate new networks or applications into the DropBeast platform. Decisions made through this process directly impact the range and nature of airdrop opportunities available to users, thereby shaping their potential airdrops and experiences.

The $BEAST token is critical to the voting process in the following ways:

1. Can determine access to voting through staking, locking or burning

2. Supply distribution and specific network can determine voting mechanism

3. Voting executed through staked tokens

These mechanisms serve a dual purpose: aligning voting power with a demonstrated commitment to the platform, and it helps mitigate frivolous or non-committal voting behaviour. The token stake acts as a representation of vested interest, ensuring that those who influence the platform's direction are also those who are substantively invested in its success.

Access: Several mechanisms utilizing staking, locking, burning or a combination of $BEAST tokens may be implemented to gate access to voting.

Info: Tokens marked for 'burn' are to be added to LP to provide market stability & generate fees for the treasury to subsidise future votes. The treasury acts as a subsidy to the voting mechanism when the $BEAST Token is high in value, during periods of low engagement the governance process will be orientated towards the burning of tokens to support future growth of the $BEAST Token.

The first possible mechanism is tiered voting power based on the staked amount of $BEAST tokens. Here, the voting power is directly proportional to the number of tokens a participant stakes. To encourage long-term investment and reduce speculative behaviour, a minimum staking duration is required for eligibility to vote. This approach aligns voting power with a vested interest in the platform.

Another method enhances voting rights for users who lock their tokens for predetermined periods. Longer lock-in periods result in higher voting power. This mechanism incentivizes users to commit to the platform for extended durations, promoting stability and reducing market volatility.

The third mechanism introduces the concept of burning tokens for increased voting influence on specific proposals. By burning a portion of their tokens, users can gain a significant, albeit temporary, increase in their voting power for a particular governance decision. This method allows users to demonstrate strong convictions regarding proposals but also results in a permanent decrease in their balance of $BEAST token units held.

Additionally, a cumulative voting power system rewards continuous stakers. Users who stake their tokens consistently over time accumulate additional voting sentiment power, fostering ongoing engagement with the ecosystem and rewarding sustained participation.

Finally, a mechanism for locked staking with a redemption penalty is employed. Participants can lock their tokens for voting rights but face a penalty if they choose to redeem their tokens before the end of the lock period. This penalty, partially burned and partially redistributed to remaining stakers, deters premature token redemption and ensures committed participation in the governance process.

These mechanisms collectively ensure that governance within the DropBeast ecosystem is both fair and representative, giving weight to those stakeholders who demonstrate a long-term commitment to the platform's success and stability.

The mechanisms allow for users to express the intensity of their preference, but at an increasing cost. This could be ideal for deciding on supporting emerging networks or applications where passion and long-term vision might be more important than sheer numbers. For example, a smaller group of highly committed users could influence the adoption of a cutting-edge but less-known application that they believe has significant future potential.

Weighted Voting Based on Time Staked: Votes are weighted by not only the amount of BEAST staked but also the length of time the tokens have been staked. Longer staking periods result in more voting power. This method can be useful when making decisions that impact the long-term direction of BEAST, such as adopting a new foundational technology or long-term partnership. It gives more influence to those who have demonstrated a long-term commitment to the ecosystem.

Single Transferable Vote (STV): In STV, voters rank their choices in order of preference. If their first choice doesn't win, or wins with more votes than needed, their vote is transferred to their next choice. This approach is beneficial for situations where there are multiple potential networks or applications to choose from, and it's important to reach a consensus that reflects the broadest possible preference of the community, rather than a simple majority for a single option.

Consensus Voting: Here, a proposal is accepted only if it achieves a very high percentage of votes (e.g., 75% or more). This approach is useful for major, irreversible decisions that will significantly affect the BEAST ecosystem, such as a radical change in the tokenomics or the integration of a network with substantially different principles or technology. Consensus voting ensures that such significant changes are made only with widespread agreement among stakeholders.