Practical Scenarios: Real Users Navigating the System¶
This guide shows concrete scenarios users encounter, demonstrating how features work together to support specific goals.
Sarah Submits Her First Proposal¶
Sarah noticed her DAO needed better documentation. After surveying new members about their challenges, she prepared a proposal requesting funds to create comprehensive guides. She chose network activity as the welfare metric since better documentation should increase participation.
Writing her proposal, she explained the current problem with examples, described deliverables, outlined a timeline with milestones, and detailed her technical writing experience. The 50 ETC bond gave her pause, but she felt confident and submitted.
During the review period, she answered community questions about budget and measurement. When trading began, PASS tokens climbed from 0.52 to 0.73 after a respected member endorsed the initiative. After resolution confirmed PASS tokens won, funds transferred and she began work, knowing oracle reporting in three months would measure actual network activity improvement.
Marcus Finds Market Inefficiencies¶
Marcus identified a security audit proposal trading at 0.38 despite solid credentials. Reading discussions, he discovered traders misunderstood how audits improve treasury value through risk reduction and confidence effects. He bought PASS tokens at 0.39, his zero-knowledge proofs preventing others from copying his strategy.
Over the next week, prices climbed to 0.69 as others reached similar conclusions. Marcus held through resolution, where careful oracle analysis confirmed treasury improvement. He redeemed his position for 73% returns, his profits representing payment for research that corrected market mispricing and added information to collective pricing.
Elena Creates a Prediction Market¶
Elena noticed no prediction market addressed an important blockchain project launch. In FairWins, she crafted a precise question: "Will Project X's mainnet launch occur by December 31st with at least 1,000 active validators?" She specified evidence sources (official dashboard, archived via Internet Archive) and edge cases (testnet doesn't count, validators must hit threshold within 48 hours).
She staked her creator bond, provided 100 USDC initial liquidity, and set a 90-day trading period. After sharing in relevant communities, trading developed around project development updates. Two weeks before deadline, the project announced a delay. YES tokens crashed to 0.18. When December 31st passed without launch, Elena submitted resolution evidence. The challenge period passed without disputes. Her market functioned as intended, successfully aggregating launch timing knowledge and building her reputation as a fair creator.
David Provides Oracle Reporting¶
David specialized in welfare metric verification. When a developer grant proposal entered resolution, he calculated baseline GitHub metrics (commits, PRs, contributors, watchers) yielding a composite score of 8,234. Projecting conservative improvements from the grant program, he estimated 9,105 (10.6% growth).
He documented methodology thoroughly in an IPFS report, posted his 100 ETC bond, and submitted values. One community member questioned his conservative projections. David explained his reasoning about hiring delays and conversion rates. No formal challenges emerged, his values were accepted, and his bond returned with a reporting fee. Careful, conservative reporting built his reputation as essential infrastructure enabling futarchy to function properly.
Lisa Challenges Incorrect Data¶
Lisa noticed an oracle reporter claimed baseline treasury value of 42.3 million ETC when her tracking showed 38.7 million. Investigating carefully before risking her 150 ETC challenge bond, she discovered the reporter included a price spike from wash trading that should have been filtered per welfare metric definitions.
She submitted her challenge with detailed evidence: cleaned TWAP calculations, wash trading transaction data, and governance discussions about filtering manipulation. UMA voters examined both submissions, debating proper interpretation of "clean market data." The vote favored Lisa. The reporter's bond was slashed, Lisa received a reward, and corrected values were used for resolution. The challenge mechanism worked as intended, providing accountability and correction when needed.
Robert Exercises Ragequit¶
Robert strongly opposed a passed proposal that he believed misaligned with DAO values. Despite his FAIL tokens losing (0.68 to 0.32), he had options. Ragequit let him withdraw his proportional treasury share during the timelock period. Calculating his 1.8% token holdings against the 18 million ETC treasury meant 324,000 ETC in mixed assets.
The decision wasn't purely financial but about principle. After discussing with others who shared concerns, Robert initiated ragequit. His governance tokens burned, and he received his proportional allocation. The community noted the ragequit as healthy system function rather than hostile action, demonstrating minority protection working as designed.
Maya Manages Her Portfolio¶
Maya maintained positions across seven proposals with different welfare metrics. Her portfolio view showed three gains, two losses, and two near entry prices. She diversified across metric types to avoid correlation risk.
One position troubled her: PASS tokens bought at 0.58 now at 0.43 after the team missed a milestone. Reviewing new information, she decided the setback wasn't fatal and held, sized appropriately within her risk tolerance. Another position offered profit-taking: FAIL tokens up from 0.37 to 0.59. She exited to redeploy capital into new opportunities rather than waiting for resolution.
Her approach involved continuous rebalancing, cycling capital from maturing positions into new opportunities while maintaining constant exposure. Privacy protection let her trade on analysis without revealing strategy to the market.
Tom Protects Against Coercion¶
Tom received a message offering payment for voting particular ways, claiming he could prove positions by sharing encryption keys. He reported the vote-buying attempt and initiated a key change. The MACI-inspired mechanism generated new key pairs, invalidating old keys while preserving his positions.
This created credible commitment not to sell votes. Even if he wanted to (which he didn't), he couldn't prove positions verifiably before payment. The key-change capability breaks the verification mechanism vote buying requires, protecting both individual autonomy and collective decision quality. Tom continued participating normally, having successfully defended against the coercion attempt.
Connecting the Scenarios¶
These scenarios show how the platform supports different goals through consistent mechanisms. Privacy protection enables honest participation in every case. Market mechanisms provide liquidity and price discovery. Governance structures ensure fairness through bonds, challenges, and accountability. Users succeed by understanding relevant parts while the system handles underlying complexity.