Disable voting for passed proposals in xGov

In the last two sessions we have seen a trend of xGovs voting for proposals that already got enough votes to be considered “Passed”. This may be because the voter likes the idea proposed and would like to show support. But the votes are being wasted. I propose the following:

Disable voting for all passed proposals.

Gems Q1 2024 NFT Incentive Program

We would like to continue doing our primary sales in COSG very much!

FYI → the 60% reserve list is a thing of the past - rn it’s being voted on 90%, 95% or no reserve list!

Regarding the UI, I’ve suggested a “slider/drag” approach on the UI, which visually shows you that you either used up all your voting power, or that the proposal already passed and you don’t need to vote for it.

Request for Feedback on xGov Reserve List improvement

The pilot is the right time to experiment. We don’t want hundreds of proposals right now, whilst we are still building. The objective of the program is to distribute Algo to the proposals that the community likes, not distribute all Algo every time. Voting session 1 success rate was pretty good.

Shufl NFT Rewards Program Proposal Q1 2024

I really like where GEMS is going with this. Very unique offering!

I think the NFT communities would massively benefit if the only value that counted was meme coins such as $COOP $PEPE $USDC $PRSMS $FAME. I have a nice bag of COOP and PEPE I’d love to use.

ALGOxNFT Q1 2024 Proposal

Is it just me or is the new proposal the same, just with clarification of the creator wallet for data collection? I also think that splitting rewards between the top 3-5 is a good idea, proportionally to volume if that’s important.

While I see the idea of a big prize pot attracting off-chain artists, a focused approach could be more beneficial.

xGov Voting Session #2 - Retrospective

HoneyPot proposal that makes you ineligible as xGov if you vote for it (to eliminate indiscriminate/botted votes). Reserve list allocation cap (e.g. 200k Algo max OR what is left in the governance pool, whichever is smaller), its utter nonsense proposals pass only because there are funds left.

On the GP10 plan itself, it’s simple and rewarding for creators and NFT traders so no complaints there.

On the topic of alternative assets - I am strongly in favour of allowing and counting NFT sales in ASA tokens. If someone is willing to pay ASA (let's say COSG) for NFT, then that should be counted.