I mentioned on the latest DAO discussion that I was interested in updating the proposal and voting process within the DAO. My aim here is to structure and streamline the process, as its clear that Bancor as a whole will grow significantly in the very near future, so I think its a great time to get the scaffolding in place for a well run DAO. As part of that, I’m in the process of brainstorming ideas and will post things as I go along, so to clarify what I’m aiming for:
I’m going to build off of the work Mark did a couple of years ago, as well as the previously passed BIP’s for the proposal process. Much of the heavy lifting has been done here.
I’d like to clarify and streamline the process for any proposal. This will build off of Mark’s previous work, including a clear template of what information is expected/required.
This primarily includes the minimum 4-day discussion period, which has lately been ignored for the most part. As such, I’m aiming to require with any proposal a link and date for the initial discussion for a proposal, so the DAO can cross reference if the required minimum discussion period occurred.
In addition, I’d like to put in place a remediation process if votes are pushed to snapshot without meeting the BIP requirements or newly clarified processes. I’m thinking for most cases a discussion within the DAO can accomplish this, i.e. a vote was pushed outside of the discussion/voting windows, and the community agrees that more time is required or more information is needed prior to a vote. However for more contentious cases (or potentially all non-compliant votes), a requisite DAO ratification vote (on a yes/no basis) if all DAO requirements were met seems like a good process to have.
I think the current quorum and majority/super majority requirements work well. That table will likely be refocused to remove liquidity mining rewards etc.
I think a new channel in Discord for DAO proposals would be good to get as many eyes on new proposals as possible.
Ultimately, I’d like to reform the process such that we remove the “flash votes” that have occurred in the past. It seems that having clear processes and DAO expectations solves much of this. On the backend, having an easy way to the DAO to cross-check if all processes were completed (like a simple checklist) and remediation process if things are non-compliant is key.
Anyway, I appreciate all of the future input, and I’ll try to make my thinking as public as possible.
Must add the date (and governance link) to the initial proposal submission for community discussion in Level 1 to any snapshot proposal. This initial Level 1 date must be a minimum of four (4) days prior to a Sunday vote, so latest day to post for a new Sunday vote is Wednesday. This also keeps the cycle of votes consistent with the 4-day discussion window.
Votes always occur on Sunday. Emergency votes are the only exception.
Create a template within Snapshot (under proposal>proposal> template settings). This should mirror the template within Level 1, and act as a reminder of what is required with each snapshot.
Potentially create a fourth voting option on Snapshiot to have “DAO Policy violation” where a vote can fail without major ramifications. As part of voting that, its strongly suggested to comment on why. If any policy items such as votes pushed outside of Sunday, inadequate discussion periods as checked via required link (or none at all), etc., this can act as a buffer for the DAO to allow a vote to self-destruct.
Create a DAO policy proposal guideline that is clear on what is expected on proposals. Many items above and reiterating those that have been previously passed via BIPs.
The governance discussion link has been added fairly consistently to all snapshot proposals (check the bottom part of the proposal), but making this a requirements is good in my view.
I think we need a more generic template first, as the templates in Level 1 are for whitelisting and liquidity mining proposals which aren’t applicable at the moment and won’t be for Carbon as well.
I’d like to add as well that as part of the policy guideline, proposals going into Snapshot must include the minimum quorum and supermajority requirements, as Snapshot doesn’t let you set these settings per proposal.
Adding here that it is possible to automate topic changes for proposals, meaning we can automate proposals to be posted for discussion at specific intervals, which might be interesting for Carbon parameter reviews. Described here:
Also, the governance forum intro needs updating:
Welcome to the Bancor Governance Forum. In this forum, the BancorDAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) proposes and discusses token Whitelistings, Trading liquidity limits, Fee changes, Bancor Improvement Proposals, and others.
That’s really interesting on the scheduled topics! Sounds like a good process to get in place.
I think the easiest place to start on all of this, like you pointed out, is just the housekeeping stuff like clearing out the outdated topics/info. I’ll compile everything and see if everyone would be fine on clearing the stage. Thanks man!
Maybe an easy way to start this whole process is to do some housekeeping to set the stage for a more productive DAO.
In the Information & Templates Section, move the following to “Old Gov” or “DAO Archive”:
a. Whitelisting Requirements
b. BIP12 & Addendum
c. BIP3 (will reference in future info sections)
In the Level 1 description, remove “There are two subcategories…” and within the Level 1 discussion. All else looks great for now.
Vote Delegation: Vote delegation to specific members might need to be resubmitted by each member who wishes to continue participating. Seems like many were submitted years ago and retiring older posts and/or updating those who wish to continue likely will prevent delegation to non-participating or current unwilling participants. Likely would be a good exercise as Carbon launches.
Move “Community Chatroom” topic to below Level 2. When I first arrived, I had trouble finding that category.
If you want to make Sunday voting a requirement, you’re going to need to specify a particular timezone for what constitutes “Sunday”. If you live in Australia, the timeframe when you experience “Sunday” is rather different to when you experience “Sunday” in California. “Sunday” could be seen as either a 24 hour long voting process, or an almost 48 hour process.