A leveraged voting power question and problem

If the xXVS can vote, that’s meaning the collateral have the vote power, a leveraged voting power, is it fair for the XVS holder who didn’t make a leverage?


  1. I only have 10 XVS,
  2. XVS pirce: 65 USDT,
  3. 60% collateral factor,
  4. I lend 390 USDT using XVS as the collateral in Venus,
  5. I used these 390 USDT to buy XVS in pancake or CEX, 390/65=6 XVS,
  6. Collateralize these 6 XVS in Venus and lend some USDT again,
  7. Use the new lending USDT to buy XVS in pancake or CEX,
  8. Collateralize these new buying XVS in Venus and lend some USDT again
  9. Repeat the opretion 4-8.

Then i will make a 1.47× leveraged XVS in 60% collateral factor, and i will have 2.4× leveraged voting power.

These is what happend in MAKERDAO and YFI, and solved, i want to know Venus how to solve this problem with the xXVS can vote?



Intresting point, how MakerDAO and YFI solved this problem?

Currently Venus is “protected” by the team and their early adopters friends controlling the majority of the XVS/xXVS and reinforcing it daily being the only ones who can increase their XVS stack at a 223% APY borrowing XVS.

Of course it’s not a long term solution if we want to achieve decentralisation but except xXVS vote I’ve read nothing concrete on the road map and the last AMA regarding DAO.

1 Like

I don’t think vXVS should have the voting power, if someone wants to vote, he should lock his XVS in vote board, this is most of the project do, Makerdao, Polkadot, Yfi, Bas…

Motivate Mechanism for voting: i think it can be some distribution from XVS and VRT or some funds from Reserves. Control APY, the APY should be a low APY like 1%-3%.

Voting power shoudn’t be tradable and lending.

Must remove borrowing XVS function, anyone shoudn’t borrow XVS with XVS in Venus, even other collateral shoudn’t borrow XVS in Venus for risk control(if some project like ADA was hacked, and then lending very mush XVS use borrowing XVS function).

1 Like

I don’t studied enough about xXVS voting pro and con but what you said makes sense.

Fully agree about borrowing, except if we want to facilitate short position again $XVS we shouldn’t allow any XVS borrowing.

In decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols like Venus, the issue you’ve described is known as “leveraged voting power” or “vote buying.” This can potentially lead to governance manipulation if users borrow against their own assets to increase their voting power disproportionately. To address such concerns and maintain fair governance, protocols often implement certain mechanisms or rules. However, it’s essential to note that the specifics can vary between different DeFi platforms.

Here are some common mechanisms that protocols may use to mitigate the impact of leveraged voting:

  1. Voting Lockup Periods: Introducing a lockup period for recently acquired tokens can prevent users from borrowing against them immediately for voting power.
  2. Governance Token Requirements: Requiring a minimum amount of native governance tokens to participate in voting can deter excessive borrowing for voting power.
  3. Vote Weight Caps: Implementing caps on the maximum voting power an address can have, irrespective of the number of tokens held or borrowed.
  4. Gradual Token Unlocking: Tokens obtained through borrowing may have a gradual unlocking mechanism, making it harder for users to quickly accumulate and leverage large amounts for voting.
  5. Community Governance Proposals: Allowing the community to propose and vote on changes to the governance system itself can be a way to address emerging issues.

It’s important to check the specific rules and mechanisms implemented by Venus, as they may have their own approach to tackle leveraged voting. Additionally, participating in the governance discussions within the Venus community can provide insights into how the protocol addresses such concerns and whether any changes or improvements are under consideration.