This is absolutely excellent. Easy no brainer for me.
4 Likes
Great Proposal, thankyou for taking the time to write it. It will have my full support
4 Likes
Well done guys, youāre a role model.
You met privately to write this draft together and then posted it here on the discussion board for further improvement. Youāve done an extraordinary and commendable job. 
BRAVILLE EVERYONE!
Iām also following @VetMaik ās suggestion about negative vote with interest. 
5 Likes
Hi all, thanks for moving this forward: I really thing it would improve the overall endorsement mechanism
From my side
- Splitting node points to multiple apps
- Capping the amount of points per app
- Avoiding full-endorsement by a single node
- Negative points
The first two points are no brainer for me, but i have mixed feeling about the last twos.
3rd)
If you own a MjolnirX, it means you have 15.6M VET locked, i.e more skin in the game than anyone else in the ecosystem. Dropping this out, will remove one key incentive to own such node. The worst case scenario of someone securing such node to self-endorse, itās still a good thing since more VET are locked. Itās a sign of commitment.
On the other hand, if one app is endorsed by a single node and we see it being malicious, we can quickly put a proposal up to remove it.
4th)
I like the idea but i foresee chaos and possibly malicious behaviours with such a thing. Surely a min cap is needed. Letās also consider nodes should remove endorsement points to do that, leading to possibly unfortunate situations. Letās iterate this further or keep it and keep it for a future proposal?
Also, we need to check with VBD team the tech feasibility of this, @Dan wdyt?
Generally speaking and when the 3rd point is tackled, Cleanify will support the proposal with a meaningful amount. Other apps will likely follow based on their evaluation of the proposal
PS: I didnāt read everything fully, but @Plunk gave me a nice overview. Please let me know if i missed something out!
2 Likes
Hi @akanoce, thanks for tagging.
From a technical point of view I think splitting points is a feasible feature. Itās a big refactor for sure, and canāt tell how much time it would take, but I think is doable.
I agree with you on the 1 node endorser. If you invested so much money in VeChain, why would you want to damage the ecosystem? And even if, as you say, a proposal could be created to exclude the app (as already happened in the past).
I saw in the comments that someone proposes to allow nodes to also decrement points, personally I would suggest being very cautious with such a feature because it could open attack vectors.
A bit disappointed to not see new economic nodes enabled to do anything with this proposal, I see it as a great opportunity for engaging with the current VeBetter user base that does not have much capital and to incentivize them even more to stake their VET and get skin in the game. Even with a power of just 1 point it would be nice. But I guess you guys did the math here and it opens some sort of attack vector as well?
2 Likes
Hi VeFam,
I wholeheartedly support the proposed changes to the VeBetterDAO endorsement model, as they unlock vital capital, enhance security, and foster true decentralization. The shift to a flexible system where node holders can distribute points across multiple dApps will invigorate the ecosystem, empowering innovation and ensuring resources flow to promising projects. This proposal addresses critical limitations, creating a more dynamic and inclusive platform that benefits all participants.
The 35-point cap per node per dApp is a game-changer, compelling dApps to compete rigorously for community support. This fosters a culture of excellence, as dApps must continuously innovate and deliver value to maintain their endorsements. By preventing any single node from dominating approvals, the proposal ensures broader consensus, driving healthy competition and elevating the quality of projects within the VeBetterDAO ecosystem.
Not accepting this is going against the community, and there is no DAO without a community.
420.vet
4 Likes
I fully understand your concerns, and I agree with some of them, but a few other reflections come to mind as well.
A node like Mjolnir X, for example, holds 100 endorsement points and has an enormous amount of VET locked. With the introduction of Stargate, the APY it receives still seems more than satisfactory to me, so I donāt think thereās much reason for it to feel penalized.
My main concern lies elsewhere: the risk that an x-node could use its endorsement power to approve a dApp possibly tied to itself, with the goal of siphoning off allocations in the various rounds, taking resources away from dApps that are truly deserving and aligned with the spirit and goals that VeBetterDAO was created for.
You rightly point out that, in cases of abuse, a proposal can always be made to remove a dApp, and youāre absolutely right. I fully agree with that principle. But the real question is: in practice, how many people are actually willing to take that step? As we know all too well, itās usually the same few of us contributing ideas and taking responsibility to push forward proposals for the good of the DAO. The average user is unlikely to take the time or initiative to act in a proactive way.
Perhaps this is exactly why the idea was born to introduce a mechanism that automatically prevents excessive concentrations of power, to create balance and mitigate potential abuses without always having to rely on manual intervention. Itās a delicate issue, no doubt, but one that definitely deserves deeper exploration.
6 Likes
Thanks @akanoce and @dan for your feedback. Great to hear that the splitting of endorsement points is feasible and supported.
@BreakingBallz will chime in with thoughts on the 1 node endorser and negative points discussions so Iāll skip those. Iāll focus on the new eco nodes as I have quite some thoughts on those.
Some prior context. This proposal started off with the intent on switching to using the GM NFTās as endorsements instead of VET Nodes. Three reasons for that:
- GM NFTs better represents interest in VeBetterDAO than VET nodes do. Hopefully that also means a higher engagement in learning about dAppsā strengths and weaknesses before endorsing.
- Allows people to earn their way up to endorsement rights with their better actions and governance alone
- GM NFTs = VET Nodes with the free GM NFT upgrades anyway. No additional costs for the current endorsers.
What we quickly ran into with this plan, however, was what score to assign the GM NFTs cheaper than the cheapest possible VET Node currently. Some options:
- Static integer points of 1-100 to keep it simple. This rapidly scales out of control if thousands of new NFTs are minted.
- Decimal points of 0.01-100.00 to account for the possibility high mint counts.
- Dynamic points based on the current mint count of each tier of GM NFT.
- This solves the issue of not needing new proposals/constant tweaking of the scores as the DAO evolves but it introduces a lot of complexities in calculation and endorsing (a user could endorse with 10 pts worth at the time, dynamic adjustments now put it at 9 pts - how is that handled?)
Neither option felt great. So we trimmed the proposal down and saved this complexity for another time, focusing more on the current endorsement points instead. This was right before Stargate so we wanted to see how that played out too. At the same time we heard that plans for the new eco nodes were discussed from the foundation on the Stargate launch space on X.
With all that we figured, letās skip that for now and see what unfolds over the next couple of months.
The same issues we saw with GM NFTs we see now with the new eco nodes. Theyāre cheap to mint and are very volatile (dawns will be burnt often as people accumulate enough for lightning nodes for example). If we give even 1 point to dawn nodes, someone could in theory endorse a dApp single-handedly for just 1M VET. Way below the current 15.6M requirement. I donāt think we can risk allowing dawns or lightnings to endorse dApps.
Itās possible that flashās could be endorsers at 200K vet. But again, even at 1 point, theyāre higher endorsement points per VET than any other current node. Strengths get 2 points at 1M vet, 5x flash nodes would get 5 points for 1M VET. Flashās would need to be at 0.3-0.4 endorsement points to not overpower the larger nodes and at that point, does it really feel worth it?
All of this combined has lead me to think endorsement rights on their own isnāt the right play for the new eco nodes. I think some entirely new system needs to be implemented for them.
Two options Iāve considered, but these are just loose ideas at the moment and not refined:
- The new eco nodes could be VeBetterDAOās version of the Hayabusa delegator NFTs in that they canāt do any endorsing on their own but need to delegate/attach themselves to an endorser (the current 600K nodes and above). The old nodes would in this scenario be the VBDās version of the Hayabusa validators.
- The new eco nodes could possibly boost the endorsement points given by an endorser in some way or affect the endorser in some other way. Point is, no endorsement rights on your own.
- A new scoring/review system for dApps be implemented where node holders of any size could review or score a dApp. The highest node your wallet has would determine the score you would be able to give with each tier of node being weighed higher than the previous tier.
- This gives the smaller nodes a purpose without risking any volatility/attack vectors in the endorsement process.
- The scores could be arbitrary and simply just show new VBD users which dApps the community recommends (in addition to the weekly votes) or play some role in the dAppās allocation for example. A 5/5 score from nodes could increase the weekly allocation received by a small %.
All things said, these things should be discussed but I donāt think itās a good fit for this specific proposal as there are too many loose ends in my opinion. Cheers for reading!
6 Likes
Hello @Dan and @akanoce! Thanks for your feedback.
@Reheat already filled you in on some of our original ideas, why we didnāt include new nodes, and how we landed here. But hereās where Iām at.
This proposal has been in the works for quite some time. Weāve considered many things. But the most important, is that itās a well balanced one. Thereās give and take for everyone involved.
It is true that a node that has 15.6 million vet may deserve the right to endorse on its own, but the DAO doesnāt belong to just the Xnodes. Itās also the communityās. And the community has seen both good and bad projects come on. When there is a project that isnāt performing well, getting farmed, not engaging with the community, we feel helpless and thereās nothing we do if they are endorsed by one entity. Sometimes, themselves. And @akanoce As much as I want to believe, not everyone is like @Elgreco.vet. For example, we donāt even know whoās backing 3 new dApps that are getting drained by day 2 after allocation is sent to them. This team never had to come meet the community or other Xnodes so they could be vetted. So, who do we talk to? Weāve reached out to foundation and we donāt get far. Where is the accountability? That is not decentralization.
Writing a proposal to remove a dApp only should happen under extreme circumstances. It takes a lot of work and will always need other dAppās support. And to write such a proposal, the offense would have to be egregious and with plenty of evidence. So, not likely.
As I stated before, this proposal is for everyone. And removing one piece of it will tip the weight to one side. Xnodes may not be able to solely endorse one dApp, but they now have the freedom of endorsing others. And because most dApps offer kick backs or multipliers using their dApps, this is financially attractive as well as being more involved in more than just one dApp.
Community members donāt get such a perk, but are just as vital to our ecosystem. And as weāve seen recently, they arenāt dumb. If a dApp is underperforming or paying itself too much, they want to feel like they have a say. And this one node one dApp topic is one many feel strongly about. Their voice should be heard in this proposal as we plan to really push for their support.
If there are any thoughts on your end how we would be able to hold underperforming dApps accountable minus the nuclear option of writing a proposal, that would be great to hear.
Thanks again for your time and all that you do for the ecosystem.
7 Likes
Just a follow up here. We fully donāt expect the foundation to do much when it comes to dealing with dApps when I said āweāve reached out to the foundationā More so just looking for someone to talk to or the endorser themselves.
4 Likes
Love all your work everyone. I canāt overstate enough just how much your constant efforts to refine and improve VeBetterDao, are appreciated. You guys rock and your making a massive positive impact. I love the idea of splitting points and points capping dapps.
On a seperate note a few general thoughts from myself:
The GM NFT system should be much further built out. Currently it has levels which offer B3TR rewards achieved through xnode status and/or B3TR sacrificing/donation. It should be built out to incorporate greater rewards and various avenues to level up such as :
- Endorsement points not only to Xnode holders but also to holders of high level GM NFTs.
- Alternative avenues to climb the GM Levels (not just through xnode status and/or B3TR sacrifice/donation). You should be able to climb the GM Levels permanently and even temporarily through soft locking, hard locking, staking and sacrificing B3TR. (Hats of to Vedelegate for leading the way on this.)
- Wallets who have shown a consistent track record of honest sustainable actions over a long period of time should also have that rewarded. Letās say if a wallet has been in the DAO for a significant period (6 months or longer) and contributed 1000+ sustainable actions without being flagged for negative behavior surely that deserves a free level up too.
5 Likes
I believe this proposal can really solve the problem of the lack of participation of many XNodes in the endorsement of Dapps on Vebetterdao! Furthermore, it will make the process more scalable, fair, and meritocratic! Dispersing so many points to a single Dapp does not favor the growth of the ecosystem! Excellent proposal, it will certainly have my support!
6 Likes
First, top proposal here, well put together guys
After getting involved with the VBDAO over the last 6 months I have heard two contrasting opinions regarding the growth of the DAO:
- on one hand you have those who would like to see less Dapps onboarded and with a higher standard of quality control
- on the other hand you would have the opposing opinion that would to see the Dapp number as high as possible and the barrier to entry not so restrictive
Now, I donāt really care which direction is taken, but if it is the 2nd option is chosen, which indeed seems to be the case at the moment, then you really want to promote a really simple and solid āparticipation rule setā as a check and balance against abuse and bad faith.
And that is the strength of this proposal: simplicity. By moving towards multiple endorsements it will naturally bring honour.
āThe whole is stronger than the sum of its individual partsā is the age old adage that sprung to mind on the 2nd reading of the proposal - and indeed, this is what the DAO should really be aboutā¦ the combined robustness of many, acting as one.
Now, I donāt have an X Node, so I do not have any skin in the game here - so from a spectators viewpoint, allowing an X Node holders points to be divided up between many dapps seems to me, as one commenter has posted: a no brainer.
The current system of āone in all inā would appear to be an extremely inefficient way of endorsement point usage. And the knock on effect is that A TONNE of added value to a system is lost, as the incentives and benefits to node holding are not currently fully realised.
Multiple Endorsements
Assigning Specific # of Points
These are a must - and I think just focussing here keeps this proposal simple and straightforward.
These should unlock a lot of potential and naturally police bad faith at the same time.
Negative Point Allocation
New Eco Node Allocation
These, and others like them can wait for later updates in my opinion. I would be in favour of going for the strongest but most simple rule set possibleā¦ once you start making extra rules, it can get messy and less manageable.
4 Likes
From side conversations Iām including these here for the sake of transparency
@VetMaik has expressed his opinion that xnodes should be able to endorse their own dApps or one dApp in general. He is one of the folks who run Betterswap. A trusted dApp in the community who may be disadvantaged with the change to require 3 nodes.
@LudoDidymus has expressed needing 2 giving mjlnor nodes 99 points.
Would love to hear more from community members.
1 Like
It seems there is broad agreement on one key point: giving all nodes the ability to freely allocate their endorsement points as they see fit. This is an important step toward greater participation and a more balanced recognition of valuable dApps.
However, on the second topic, the possibility for a single Mjolnir x node to approve a dApp on its own, there doesnāt seem to be a clear consensus yet. But maybe thereās a middle ground that could align both perspectives.
What if we raised the approval threshold for dApps from 100 out of 100 to 110 out of 110?
This small adjustment, combined with the flexibility to distribute endorsement points, would make unilateral approvals more difficult while still preserving the influence and value of large nodes. They would remain highly impactful without having sole control.
I believe this kind of solution could help strengthen the decentralization of the system, protect truly deserving dApps, and at the same time acknowledge the commitment of those who have invested heavily in the ecosystem.
Also, raising the approval threshold should not be too complex on the development side. It should simply require changing a parameter in the logic, but of course @Dan can confirm if thatās the case.
| Aspect | Original Proposal | My Suggestion |
|---|---|---|
| Endorsement Threshold | 100 points | 110 points |
| Per-node Cap per dApp | 35 points max per node per dApp | No fixed cap per node |
| Flexibility in Allocation | Yes, but with fixed per-dApp cap | Yes, full flexibility |
6 Likes
Since there is a major agreement on most points, i suggest to push this forward without the MjolnirX limitation and the negative points. We can then see how this goes and further discuss other improvements later.
1 Like
There are only two points to this proposal and only one has been agreed on. Keeping only one will unfairly tip it in one direction.
Weāve seen both opposition and support for the requirement of 3 nodes during this discourse and weāve gotten plenty of support elsewhere. So at this moment, we will not be dropping that part of the proposal.
We are discussing other options and will present them shortly and hopefully we can make a compromise. Again, if you have any suggestions besides just saying no, that would be appreciated 
Thank you
5 Likes
While I strongly support the vision of VeBetterDAO and the need to unlock endorsement capital for ecosystem growth I believe transparency and credibility must be prioritized especially during these early formative stages. It has come to my attention that three applications were recently endorsed bitegram,trashdash and bybyebites yet seemingly by only one endorser. This raises serious concerns around decentralization, fairness, and the true intent of the endorsement mechanism. Endorsement capital should be earned through broad community support, not concentrated influence. Allowing a single actor to push through multiple apps undermines the integrity of the process and sets a worrying precedent. If the ecosystem is to attract genuine builders, we need to ensure the endorsement model reflects merit, inclusivity and multi stakeholder backing. I urge the core team to temporarily reassess or suspend these endorsements, investigate how this occurred, and clarify the safeguards that will prevent such issues in the future. A transparent and fair endorsement process is essential for long-term trust in VeBetterDAO.
5 Likes
After much conversation on this topic, weāve updated our proposal to increase the amount of points available to endorse per dapp for Mjolnir X-nodes. Increasing the cap, but still requiring three nodes to endorse an dApp. Update will follow this message.
1 Like
Proposal: Unlocking Endorsement Capital to Foster Growth and Protecting the VebetterDao Ecosystem
1. The Current Problem: Locked Capital & Single Node dApp Endorsements.
The current VeBetterDAO endorsement model, while functional, imposes significant limitations that lock up valuable endorsement capital and reduce security for node holders.
-
Locked Endorsement Points: The āall-or-nothingā system requires endorsers to commit their entire point value to a single dApp. For a Mjolnir X node holder, this means 100 points are locked in one dApp, even if that dApp only needed a few points to reach its goal. This creates a massive pool of dormant endorsement capital that could be used to endorse new dApps. Or if a new dApp comes onto the DAO, an endorser may want to switch but has to bring all their points. Leaving a dApp they wish they could still endorse partially at risk.
-
Centralized Endorsements: The system allows a dApp to be fully endorsed by a single large node. This is not true decentralization and fails to represent broad community consensus, concentrating power instead of distributing it.
2. The Proposed Solution: Activating Capital and Flexible Governance
This proposal introduces a flexible and secure model designed to unlock dormant endorsement points and empower node holders. By moving to a partial-endorsement system, 1,052 points will free up to give node holders granular control over their assets.
-
Unlocking Capital with Multiple dApp Endorsements: The single-dApp limit will be removed. Node holders will be able to split their points and distribute them across as many dApps as they wish. This immediately frees up their locked points, allowing them to flow to new and emerging projects and stimulating ecosystem-wide growth.
-
Enhancing Security with Granular Control: The un-endorsement process will become partial. If a node holder wishes to withdraw support, they can choose exactly how many points to remove. Only those specific points will enter the cooldown period, leaving the rest of the nodeās points active and available for use. This significantly enhances security and flexibility for the node holder.
-
Promoting Decentralization with an Endorsement Cap: A single node holder can endorse any given dApp with a maximum of 49 points. This ensures no single entity can unilaterally approve a project, forcing dApps to acquire genuine, broad-based community support.
- Additionally, a cap of 110 total endorsement points per dApp will be implemented. This will allow padding and give some security for each dApps endorsement on the DAO, as well as freeing up more endorsement points to be used elsewhere. The 100 points requirement to get endorsed will remain.
3. Transition for Existing Endorsements
Before the new system is fully in place, a one-time migration will occur. This process will refund the endorsement points where needed based on the 49 point endorser cap and 110 point per dApp cap. The process also includes steps that will ensure current endorsers continue to endorse the dApp of their choosing. Specific details below.
-
Step 1 - 49 Point Cap Automatic Adjustment:
-
Any existing endorsement from a single node holder to a dApp that exceeds the 49-point limit will be automatically reduced to 49 points.
-
All excess points will be instantly credited back to the node holderās available point balance.
-
-
Step 2 - Check if dApp endorsements need refunding:
-
If new dApp score Āā¤ 110 = Skip
-
If new dApp score > 110 = Proceed to step 3
-
-
Step 3 - Calculate Reducible points:
For each endorser:- reducible_points = current_points - 1 (Ensures no endorser goes below 1 point)
-
Step 4 - Calculate Total Reducible:
- total_reducible = sum of all endorsers reducible_points
-
Step 5 - Calculate Share of Reduction:
For each endorser:- share = reducible_points / total_reducible
-
Step 6 - Calculate Reduction Amount:
-
total_refund = current_score - target_score (Target score is 110)
-
For each endorser:
- reduction = share * total_refund (Rounded to the nearest whole number)
-
-
Step 7 - Compare Total Reduction to Total Refund:
-
total_reduction = sum of all reductions after rounding
-
If total_reduction < total_refund = refund the remaining points 1 at a time per node type, starting from the highest reducible until the dApp endorsement score sits between 100-110
---- E.g. If 2 or more Mjolnir(X) are endorsing they all receive a 1 point refund
-
-
Step 8 - Apply Reductions:
-
new_points = current_points - reduction
-
Ensure new_points ā„ 1 for all endorsers.
-
Once steps are complete for this one-time event, these unlocked points will be immediately available for endorsing new dApps, and others who have entered the grace-period, with no cooldown. Activating the new, more flexible and secure system for everyone.
4. Summary of Changes
Added Features
-
A new interface for assigning a specific number of endorsement points.
-
A new interface for removing a specific number of endorsement points.
-
A one-time, automatic migration script to adjust all existing endorsements.
Modified Features
-
Capital Unlocked: Node holders can split points across multiple dApps.
-
Security Enhanced: Only withdrawn points enter cooldown, not the entire nodeās balance.
-
Decentralization Fostered: A 49-point maximum per node per dApp is introduced.
-
Buffer Added: The maximum endorsement cap for a dApp is now 110 points.
Removed Features
-
The āone dApp per nodeā limitation is removed.
-
The āall-or-nothingā endorsement and un-endorsement model is deprecated.
Unchanged Features
- The requirement for a dApp to be successfully endorsed remains at 100 points.
7 Likes